New Poll: After House Passage of Pelosicare: "Tide Has Changed", Now More Unpopular Than '94 Hillarycare

I know that the last thing I want to look at are polls, but there is a couple of things here in their findings that I found really interesting

In one of the first national surveys completed after the House vote on health care reform…things do not look good for President Obama and Democrats in Congress:

Opposition to President Obama’s health care plan is higher after the House vote than our previous tracks (29% favor/40% oppose). Voters’ net opposition to the plan has
increased from -6% in September (31% favor/37% oppose) to -11% today.

Voter opposition to President Obama’s health care plan is higher than ever
measured for President Clinton’s plan in 1993/1994 (35% oppose in June 1994).

Multiple surveys show voters believe President Obama’s health care plan will mean their health care costs will increase (46% increase/11% decrease) and their quality of care willget worse (40% get worse/18% get better). Concerns about cost have trended up since September.

Data continue to show the more people hear about President Obama’s health care plan the less they like it (38% the more I like it/52% the less I like it).

The tide has significantly changed as Americans’ views about government involvement
in health care are shifting. In March 2009, by a one point margin, voters said the federal government had a responsibility to provide government-run health care coverage toall.

Today, this number has significantly shifted as voters now say by a 17 point margin it is not the federal government’s responsibility.

With the 2010 elections right around the corner, this is not the change that the Democrats were hoping for in this country. These types of numbers have made Democrats in more conservative districts very nervous and could lead to the end of this form of healthcare reform. Hopefully, it will force Pelosi, Reid, and company to start over from scratch, so we can get reform that will actually make things better and not worse.

Great News: Recovery.org Says There Are 30K Saved Jobs & $6.4B Sent to 440 Districts That Don't Exist

Do they have no shame or are they really that bad at math? Recovery.org greatly over exaggerated the "success" of the stimulus bill:

The government Web site that promised to show exactly where the $787 billion in stimulus spending was going to "create or save" jobs is allocating billions of tax dollars to hundreds of congressional districts that don’t exist.

Researchers at the Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity found 440 “phantom districts” listed on Recovery.gov, consuming $6.4 billion and creating or saving nearly 30,000 jobs. Their findings are listed HERE.

For example, Recovery.gov shows 12 districts, using up more than $2.7 billion, in Washington, D.C, which only has one congressional district.

Recovery.gov also shows 2,893.9 jobs created with $194,537,372 in stimulus funding in New Hampshire’s 00 congressional district. But, there is no such thing.

The site also shows $1,471,518 going to New Hampshire’s 6th congressional district, $1,033,809 to the 4th congressional district and $124,774 to the 27th congressional district. In fact, New Hampshire only has two congressional districts; inviting confusion about where the money listed for the 00, 4th, 6th and 27th districts is going.

We don't really have enough money for the districts that we do have. Do we need to be sending it to districts that we don't have? Seriously, where is all the money going to? I guess it was a self-fulfilling prophecy, when Biden said that there would be some mistakes made. With them misspending our money on such at such an obscene level, why do them want them to take control of 1/6th of the economy through the healthcare bill.

Forget Stupak! Here's the Real Slap to the Face to All American Woman: Feds: You Don't Really Need Mammograms? Do You?

Ed Morrisey came out with a post that revealed a possible link in between a recent report from a part of Obama's Department of Health and Human Services and the beginning of healthcare rationing of women:

What a difference six months — and a health-care overhaul proposal — can make! Just six months ago, the U.S Preventive Services Task Force, which works within the Department of Health and Human Services as a “best practice” panel on prevention, sounded a warning signal over a slight decline in annual mammograms among women in their 40s. In fact, they warned women of this age bracket that they could be risking their lives if they didn’t get the annual preventive exam (via HA reader Devil’s Advocate)

But today, that same panel says … never mind:

What changed in six months to change the USPSTF from a sky-is-falling hysteric on a 1% decline in testing to Emily Litella? If the administration gets its way, the government will be paying for a lot more of these exams when ObamaCare passes. That will put a serious strain on resources, especially since many of the providers will look to avoid dealing with government-managed care and its poor compensation rates.

The motivation for HHS will be to cut costs, not to save lives. The sudden reversal in six months of the USPSTF, especially after it made such a stink over a relatively minor decline in screening, certainly makes it appear that they have other priorities than life-saving in mind here.

One final thought. Barack Obama predicated his ObamaCare vision on the notion that increased prevention would save costs. Suddenly, his administration is for decreased screening and prevention. Could that have anything to do with the CBO scoring on screening? And what does that say about how government will make decisions once they control the compensation and care in the US?

First, we see what happens when the government mishandles the release of a life-saving vaccinations with long lines and low supplies. Now we the beginning of the rationing of healthcare. Both of which will cost potentially millions of American lives. Welcome to Obamacare, ladies and gentlemen.

Great News: New Report Shows Pelosicare Will Raise Costs, Lower Quality of Medicare

A new report that studied what impact Pelosicare will have on Medicare has come out, and the finding are not good for granny:

A plan to slash more than $500 billion from future Medicare spending — one of the biggest sources of funding for President Obama's proposed overhaul of the nation's health-care system — would sharply reduce benefits for some senior citizens and could jeopardize access to care for millions of others, according to a government evaluation released Saturday.

The report, requested by House Republicans, found that Medicare cuts contained in the health package approved by the House on Nov. 7 are likely to prove so costly to hospitals and nursing homes that they could stop taking Medicare altogether.

This gives "Throw Mama Off the Train" a whole new meaning. This is one reason why many seniors are against the bill, no matter what the AARP thinks.

Not only will it lessen the quality of their own healthcare and quality of life, but it, also, burden their children and grandchildren with the added costs:

In the face of greatly increased demand for services, providers are likely to charge higher fees or take patients with better-paying private insurance over Medicaid recipients, "exacerbating existing access problems" in that program, according to the report from Richard S. Foster of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

"This report confirms what virtually every independent expert has been saying: [House] Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi's health-care bill will increase costs, not decrease them," said Rep. Dave Camp (Mich.), the senior Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee. "This is a stark warning to every Republican, Democrat and independent worried about the financial future of this nation."

When will Pelosi and the Democrats realize or admit that the bill that they created is the worst bill evah and chunk it in the trash? I'm not going to hold my breath.

UK: Lawmaker Presents Cap-N-Trade Plan Where Individuals Are Issued Carbon Coupons

In a plan that is similar to the Democrats' plan for the US, the British are looking to give out what I call "carbon coupons" for individuals to use whenever they make a mark on their carbon footprint that they must pay extra for, if they go over their allotted amount:

Lord Smith of Finsbury presented a plan earlier in the week in which “individual carbon allowances” would be doled out to Brits in an effort to reduce their “carbon footprints.” If passed by their government, the plan would, “involve people being issued with a unique number which they would hand over when purchasing products that contribute to their carbon footprint, such as fuel, airline tickets and electricity. Like with a bank account, a statement would be sent out each month to help people keep track of what they are using.” If they hit zero, then they have to buy more credits. If they don’t use up all their credits, then they can sell them to others.

The British plan is pretty much the way that cap and trade would work in the US if it were passed by Congress. Not only companies, but individuals would be rationed a “cap” on things such as gas for their vehicles, heating and cooling their homes and businesses, and electricity. And they would be able to “trade” whatever they don’t use. Even if this particular tax isn’t directly applied to individuals at first, it will be passed on indirectly, because businesses will pass on that extra cost to customers. So once individuals start getting hit directly, they will, in effect, be getting hit twice.

Great! More taxes! That is just what this economy needs to rebound. The government needs to suck their citizen's hard-earned money away not just once but twice. They can't just take one bite from the apple. They need two. People won't miss their money. Right? It's such a minute amount that they won't even notice:

Democrats are pushing for a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. However, back in March, The Wall Street Journal reported that the congressional budget office, “estimates that the price hikes from a 15% cut in emissions would cost the average household in the bottom-income quintile about 3.3% of its after-tax income every year. That's about $680, not including the costs of reduced employment and output. The three middle quintiles would see their paychecks cut between $880 and $1,500, or 2.9% to 2.7% of income. The rich would pay 1.7.” With unemployment already being over 10 percent (as of this writing) Republicans have expressed a deep concern over the impact of a bill like this on the present economy if it were to pass.

Wow, I could but a lot of Yohoo with $680. Second thought, this may not be the best idea Congress ever had.

Rotten ACORN Sues Uncle Sam For Their Right to Your Hard-Earned Tax Dollars

Since James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles of Big Government caught ACORN workers committing felonies, there has been a big backlash against the liberal organization. It was so bad that a heavily Democratic federal government had to pull their support of the crooked organization. After the House and the Senate voted convincingly to cut off federal funding to ACORN, Bertha Lewis and company have been fuming. Now, they are planning on getting revenge on the US government by suing the US government to get their hands back on our money:

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now is hitting back at the federal government with a lawsuit arguing that Congress violated the Constitution when it passed legislation banning federal funding for the group.

What is the basis of their lawsuit? What argument could their lawyers have possibly come up with to even think about using in court?

The lawsuit also says Congress violated the Fifth Amendment right to due process, and the First Amendment right to freedom of association by targeting organizations affiliated and allied with ACORN. It wants the court to issue an injunction to keep the government from re-appropriating funds originally for the group and its affiliates.

"It's not the job of Congress to be the judge, jury, and executioner," said Jules Lobel, cooperating attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights. "We have due process in this country."

The due process argument is asinine. Could they really be implying that they have a constitutional right to our tax money? The right to due process pertains to criminal trials not Congressional debates. Congress has the right to cut funding from any organization at any time for any reason. Congress doesn't nor should it hold "trials" to determine if an organization is able to continue to receive funds or whether it should be pulled for wrongdoing. This would lead to every organization that receives money to expect a full trial, if Congress ever decides to pull funding. This would be pandamonium.

Now, let's get to the other stupid argument. The first admendment's "right to assembly" is not being violated. Congress is not forcing them to disband or close shop. They still have their right to peaceful assembly. ACORN can still dig up the dead and get them to vote or go to daycare to sign up the toddlers.

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?

NY23: Was Owens Sworn In Too Soon? Absentee Ballots Keeping Hoffman Victory Within Reach?

On election night, a Hoffman victory looked like it was close but no cigar. After Hoffman conceded, Pelosi wasted no time getting him sworn into office. She needed every vote she could get to ram Pelosicare through. Now that 100% of the polls have reported and all of the absentee ballots are being counted, the race is not just tightening but is turning into a photo finish:

Owens declared victory after Conservative nominee Doug Hoffman conceded the 23rd Congressional District race election night. Now recanvassing shows the special election has narrowed to a 3,000-vote difference, and will be decided by a count of absentee ballots. Washington -- Conservative Doug Hoffman conceded the race in the 23rd Congressional District last week after receiving two pieces of grim news for his campaign: He was down 5,335 votes with 93 percent of the vote counted on election night, and he had barely won his stronghold in Oswego County.

As it turns out, neither was true.

After all of the missing votes were found and tabulated, here is the current count:

Now a recanvassing in the 11-county district shows that Owens’ lead has narrowed to 3,026 votes over Hoffman, 66,698 to 63,672, according to the latest unofficial results from the state Board of Elections.

In Oswego County, where Hoffman was reported to lead by only 500 votes with 93 percent of the vote counted election night, inspectors found Hoffman actually won by 1,748 votes -- 12,748 to 11,000.

The new vote totals mean the race will be decided by absentee ballots, of which about 10,200 were distributed, said John Conklin, communications director for the state Board of Elections.

Out of over 10,000 votes, Hoffman must outnumber the votes that Owens gets by 3,000. It is still a long shot, but it is definitely attainable.

Since most of the ballots were sent in before Dede Scozzofava dropped out, she will play a huge role in the outcome as well. Will she take more away from Owens or Hoffman. Some experts believe that Hoffman would benefit more than Owens, but will it be enough?

I can see why Pelosi rushed him through. She might have know that this might happen and didn't Hoffman taking back his concession before she could get Owens sworn in.

One might wonder how she was able to do this in the first place. Here's how:

"We sent a letter to the clerk laying out the totals," Conklin said. "The key is that Hoffman conceded, which means the race is not contested. However, all ballots will be counted, and if the result changes, Owens will have to be removed."

Would a contested race that would have kept Owens from swearing in kept the healthcare bill from going through? Probably not, it passed with 220 votes two more than they needed. So, one less vote wouldn't killed the bill, but as close as it was, it could have.

These "mistakes" could've had a profound impact on the future of this country. Owens shouldn't have been sworn in until all of the votes were counted. If Pelosi wanted his vote, she should have delayed the vote until all the ballots were counted. What was the rush? Maybe she didn't want to give the public more time to read here almost 2,000 page bill. People would might have found more that they didn't like in the bill, if they were actually given a chance to read it.

The chances of a "Dewey Defeats Truman" moment is slim, but it is still worthwhile to keep an eye on the count. It could give Hoffman momentum that he would need to try again in November 2010.

Now, this comment by Owens' spokesman had nothing substantial to add, but it was just a brilliant non-answer that I had to add it:

When asked about the tightening race, Owens spokesman Jon Boughtin released a statement without directly addressing the election. "Since being elected, Congressman Owens has remained focused on the issues at hand: working with local leaders to address the Champlain Bridge closure, meeting with commanders at Fort Drum and continuing the work to strengthen Upstate New York," the statement said.

Brilliant!

Sen. Ben Nelson Won't Vote Yes on Healthcare Bill With Government Option or Federal Funding of Abortions

Democratic support for the healthcare bill has sprung another leak. This time it is Senator Ben Nelson out of Nebraska:

In a warning sign for the White House, Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska tells ABC News that he'll vote to block any health care bill that looks like the bill passed by the House.

Why is he thumbing his nose at Harry Reid, Pelosi, and the millions that are uninsured?

"Well, first of all, it has more than a robust public option, it's got a totally government-run plan, the costs are extraordinary associated with it, it increases taxes in a way that will not pass in the Senate and I could go on and on and on," Nelson said in an interview that is part of ABC News' Subway Series with Jonathan Karl.

"Faced with a decision about whether or not to move a bill that is bad, I won't vote to move it," he added. "For sure."

The $1.1 trillion price tag on the House bill, Nelson said, is "absolutely" too high.

The $1.1 trillion quote is, actually, on the low side, but that is besides the point. This is just another trillion plus government boodoogle that will end up hurting more than it will help.

Consider the stimulus plan, Obama said that we must pass it, or we will reach 10% unemployment without it. He used fear to rush it through. Well, we passed it, and were still at 10% plus

There is one thing about the House bill, however, that Nelson does like: the strict ban on any abortion coverage by insurance plans bought with government subsidies. Unless the Senate bill includes a similar provision, Nelson said, he'll vote against it.

"Federal taxpayer money ought not to be used to fund abortions," Nelson said. "So whether it is subsidies on premiums or whether it is tax credits or whatever it is...it should not be used to fund abortions."

That's another dagger in the bill and NOW's heart.

In response to Bill Clinton's comments earlier, he said something that sounds a bit familiar:

"What I heard him say is that you don't have to let the desire for perfection get in the way of the good," Nelson said. "And that makes a great deal of sense. But I would add the caveat that we have to be sure it is not a bad bill, that it doesn't add to the deficit, that it doesn't increase taxes, and that does, in fact, control the growth in costs."

I think he read my post right before the interview. So, I'm taking all the credit for his Damascus moment.

With the Senate needing 60 votes to pass anything and all 40 Republicans against it at this time, Reid needs all 60 Democrats to pass it. He cannot afford one defection, but he has at least 3 (Lieberman, Landrieu, too) so far and at least three more (McCaskill, Lincoln, Bayh) that could commit to a no vote. This isn't good for Sen. Reid.

Why Can't They Stop? Bill Clinton Calls Opponents of Democratic Healthcare Reform: "Teabaggers"

Why can’t liberals and Democrats stop talking like teenage boys? It is beyond juvenile. It's definitely unpresidential. First, Obama referred to conservatives using juvenile terminology. Apparently, Bill Clinton couldn’t resist, either:

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said Clinton described the ongoing tea party protests against the Democratic agenda as a sign their party was making progress.

Whitehouse quoted Clinton arguing: "The reason the tea-baggers are so inflamed is because we are winning."

Bill, given your history, don’t you think you’re the last person that should be using sexual metaphors?

Let’s get to his overall point:

"The point I want to make is: Just pass the bill, even if it's not exactly what you want," Clinton told Democrats. "When you try and fail, the other guys write history."

He expounds on this point later in the interview:

Clinton’s overall message was one the Obama administration has tried to make: not passing a bill is worse than passing one that’s not perfect. "So it’s not important to be perfect here, it’s important to act, to move, to start the ball rolling, to claim the evident advantages that all these plans agree with, and whatever they can get the votes for, I’m gonna support,” Clinton said he told the senators. “I think it is good politics to pass this and to pass this as soon as they can. But I think the most important thing is it is the right thing for America. The worst thing to do is nothing.”

Everyone can agree that something has to be done, but I disagree that "nothing" is the worst that can be done. They can pass this bill and make things worse. It'll raise the national debt even higher, lowering the quality of health care by running driving out the competition, not adequately addressing tort reform, etc.

I agree that we must act, move, and start the ball rolling, and do what is the right thing for America, but we can't do something just for sake of doing something. Does the plan have to be perfect? No, but it can't be rushed into without giving all sides adequate consideration. The Democratic leadership hasn't done that, not even from within their own party.

Obama's Keeping the Presidency Classy: Pelosicare Opponents Are "Teabag, Anti-Government People" & Extemists

This is according to one of the Democratic representatives from Oregon:

Mr. Obama, during his private pep talk to Democrats, recognized Mr. Owens election and then posed a question to the other lawmakers. According to Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, who supports the health care bill, the president asked, “Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit” Democratic voters “and it will encourage the extremists.”

The New York Times just glossed over it in an obscure blog entry. I haven't found it in another major news outlet, yet. This will probably get swept under the rug by the mainstream media, but it shows the real contempt that Obama has for half of his constituents.

Exit Thought: I wonder how much grief from the liberal Democratic establishment Blumenauer will get for letting the cat out of the teabag.

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.

Proof-Positive That He Is An Idiot: Gibbs: What If They Would of Compared Bush to Hitler?

Was Robert Gibbs on Mars for the last 8 years? That is the only explanation that I can come up with that will explain how he can even say this:

Today, Robert Gibbs lamented some of the offensive signs at Bachmann's anti-health bill rally (of which there were some, but not enough to even fill out HuffPo's 12 Most Offensive slideshow):

"I will continue to say what I've said before. You hear in this debate, you hear analogies, you hear references to, you see pictures about and depictions of individuals that are truly stunning, and you hear it all the time. People -- imagine five years ago somebody comparing health care reform to 9/11. Imagine just a few years ago had somebody walked around with images of Hitler.

Hopefully we can get back to a discussion about the issues that are important in this country that we can do so without being personally disagreeable and set up comparisons to things that were so insidious in our history that anybody in any profession or walk of life would be well advised to compare nothing to those atrocities."

Right? Apparently, he hasn't seen these or these.

I, also, wonder where his outrage was when fellow Democrat Alan Grayson compared healthcare crisis to the Holocaust.

Mary Katherine Ham has many more examples on her post. He isn't entitled to his own set of facts from his own revisionist history.

Former Planned Parenthood Director Says She Had Abortion Quotas

A few days ago, a story came out about a director at a Planned Parenthood location in Bryan, Texas who quit, after she saw an ultrasound of an abortion.

Now, she has been talking to WorldNetDaily that there is more than meets the eye going on at Planned Parenthood, not any pro-life advocate's surprise:

The former Texas-based Planned Parenthood director who recently quit after seeing an ultrasound video of an abortion says high Planned Parenthood officials wanted her center to meet quotas for the number of abortions done. Abby Johnson had been the director of the Planned Parenthood in Bryan/College Station.

These quotas weren't just for her. Upper management pushed her to push her employees to "keep abortion numbers high."

"There are definitely client goals," she said. "We'd have a goal every month for abortion clients and for family planning clients."

These weren't any "soft" quotas. They were pushing her hard to kill more unborn babies. Why? Hint it's not for their patients' wellbeing:

She said her facility did abortions every other Saturday but began increasing the number of abortions in order to increase revenues. One method involved increasing the number of abortions done with the dangerous mifepristone abortion drug.

"One of the ways they were able to up the number of patients that they saw was they started doing the RU-486 chemical abortions all throughout the week," she said.

Just show how much that Planned Parenthood officials didn't care about the health of the woman, this is what one abortion drug mentioned above has done to women nationwide:

Johnson told WND that abortions using the drug, which has killed 13 women worldwide and injured at least 1,100 in the United States alone according to the FDA, would bring in between $505 and $695 depending on the age of the baby at the time of the abortion.

They push this drug even though they very well know the side-effects.

There are a few supporters of the abortion that claim that Planned Parenthood is not all about abortions, but these stats seem to paint a different picture:

Yet, prenatal care and adoption referrals resulted for only 5 percent of the total services provided to women in 2007 while abortions accounted for 95 percent of the services that year, according to Planned Parenthood's own figures.

This organization is nothing but a baby killing factory. The premise of them being a women's health clinic that is only interested in the health and well-being of women is a joke. It seems to care very little about it. They should pull any and all federal funding for the immoral operation.

Hoyer, 2nd Highest Democrat: Um, Nancy, We May Not Have Voted to Pass Pelosicare After All, Sorry

Just yesterday, Pelosi said that she was confident that she would have the votes to pass her healthcare bill. However, the House Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer (D-MD) doesn't have as much confidence about the bill's passage as the Madame Speaker has:

A House leader says Democrats haven't yet lined up enough votes to pass their health care overhaul bill.

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland says the vote that House Democrats had scheduled for Saturday could slip to Sunday or early next week.

Hoyer acknowledged to reporters Friday that Democratic leaders don't yet have the 218 votes needed to pass President Barack Obama's historic health overhaul initiative.

He said he still expects passage Saturday night. But he added that some Democrats are still "looking to get a comfort level" with the bill. Republicans are unanimously opposed to the sweeping legislation.

As was reported earlier by various sources, health care funding for abortion and illegal immigrants are the main obstacles to the final passage of the bill in the House.

Since there is unanimous GOP opposition to the bill, Pelosi can only afford to lose 40 Democrats to pass the bill. At this time, there is a large enough pro-life and pro-illegal immigrant faction in the Democratic caucus that might "kill the bill". Apparently, it's large enough the even the 2nd top Democrat in the House doesn't believe doubts Pelosi's vote count.

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."

Is This Really Necessary? Oscar the Grouch Trashes Fox News

In an effort to not so subliminally influence our young, a television show that is geared to toddlers has decided to enter the war against Fox News. Oscar, Big Bird, and company are supposed to be teaching our kids how to count and say their ABC's not what news channel to watch when they come of age. Considering that it is all of our tax dollars that pay for Sesame Street, we are all paying for our kids to be indoctrinated by Oscar the Grouch. This is way over the line, and yet another reason why all federal money should be pulled from PBS, if they continue to include this liberal propaganda in our children's educational programming.

What Gives? Rasmussen: Shows GOP Numbers Dwindling, While Conservative Numbers Are Still High

Democrats believe that the falling numbers of voters that call themselves Republicans and the election of Barack Obama are signs that America is becoming more liberal. However, there are a couple of Rasmussen polls that are very telling on what the real story is behind the GOP decline.

One reason for this is that while Republican voters overwhelmingly consider themselves conservative, only 56% of conservative voters consider themselves to be Republicans. In other words, nearly half of all conservatives nationwide reject the Republican Party label.

I would be included in that group. Whenever I'm asked what party that I'm affiliated with, I just say that I'm a conservative. I do vote for Republicans, most of the time, but I feel that many of them have gone to Washington to change it but Washington changed them. Many conservatives believe that the GOP has lost its Republican roots.

What about the rest of the Americans that don't call themselves Republicans?

Of all the non-Republicans in the nation, 31% consider themselves at least somewhat conservative while 37% say they’re political moderates.

So, it seems that America hasn't moved that far to the left. We are still a center-right nation. People believe that it is the GOP that has moved to the left, and the the rise of the conservative Doug Hoffman and the fall of the liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava in the NY23 race seems to confirm this theory. The people of the 23rd district of New York have picked the conservative over the "moderate". On Tuesday, if the polls hold up, they will choose Hoffman over the Pelosi-backed Bill Owens.

NJ: "Tight Race" Not So Tight, Christie Pulling Ahead As Independents Are "Unhappy" With Gov. Corzine's Job Performance

Many predicted that the New Jersey governor's race would be the closest race of all this year. Corzine evened the numbers in some polls and pulled ahead in others, over the past month. Yesterday, the polls started showing that Christie pulling ahead:

The final Public Policy Polling survey in New Jersey finds Chris Christie (R) pulling ahead of Gov. Jon Corzine (D), 47% to 41%, with independent Chris Daggett at 11%.

Three weeks ago, Christie led by just one point but Corzine's momentum has stalled in the last two surveys.

Analysis: "Christie's advantage is due largely to his support from independents and because he has Republicans more unified around him than the Democrats are around Corzine. Christie leads Corzine 52-29 with indies, as Daggett's support with that group has declined to 16%. Christie is getting 82% of Republicans to Corzine's 72% of Democrats."

Why the sudden support for Christie at the end? Why are independents and former Daggett supporters flocking to the Republican challenger? Apparently, as Election Day looms ahead of us, they have been getting nervous about the chances that Corzine could get re-elected:

“Independent voters are simply unhappy with the job Governor Corzine has done over the past four years. After a brief flirtation with Daggett’s candidacy, many seem to have returned to Christie as their best chance for change,” said (Patrick) Murray(director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute).

That isn't surprising considering that Corzine's apporval are a horrible overall, 35% approve to 55% disapprove, and an abysmal 21% to 69% among Democrats.

Valerie Jarrett: GOP Becoming More Extreme & Marginalized, Dems Reaching Out/ Tell That to Pelosi, Reid

Valerie Jarrett has been very vocal lately. First, she criticized Fox Newsfor being biased while dodging the question about MSNBC’s liberal bias. Today, she said that the conservative revolt that chased the liberal Republican Scozzafava out of the NY23 race shows that the Republican is becoming more extreme and marginalized:

White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” that the rise of a Conservative Party challenger in a closely watched upstate New York House election shows that the Republican Party leadership is “becoming more and more extreme, and more and more marginalized.”

“It’s rather telling when the Republican Party forces out a moderate Republican and it says, I think, a great deal about where the Republican Party leadership is right now,” Jarrett said when asked about the GOP candidates’ decision to suspend her campaign, making it more likely the Conservative will win Tuesday’s special election.

I think that this is rather ironic that she is saying that Republicans are becoming more extreme because Hoffman won the heartsof the average conservative more than Scozzafava could ever win them over. However, on the other flip of the coin she said absolutely nothing about the Democratic party becoming more extreme and marginalized, when Pelosi and Reid thumb their noses at more moderate Democrats like Lieberman, Landrieu Stupak, etc, when they express doubts about the health care plans. In fact, she claimed quite the opposite:

“We’re going to try to include as many people to be a part of our governing process — being open, being transparent,” Jarrett continued.

So, basically, she is saying that Democrats are trying to be inclusive and wants to "include as many people" in governing. How inclusive was Pelosi and Reid being when they shut out Republicans during conference of the porkulus bill?

Exit question: I'm going to let Amanda Carpenter ask it this time. She had a very interesting question that I would love to have Valerie Jarrett, White House, and other Democrats answer:

As Valerie Jarrett bashes GOP for becoming "extreme" by pushing out moderate Scozzafava, how much WH is loving Joe Lieberman right now??

Well, Ms. Jarrett?

NY23: Former Republican Candidate Scozzafava Endorses Democrat Owens Over Conservative Hoffman

When the liberal Republican candidate dropped out of the race earlier this week, many thought that she would probably endorse Hoffman for the House seat. Apparently, they were, not that all surprisingly, wrong:

State Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava (R), who dropped from the special election in Upstate New York yesterday, has now thrown her support to Democrat Bill Owens.

"It's not in the cards for me to be your representative, but I strongly believe Bill is the only candidate who can build upon John McHugh's lasting legacy in the U.S. Congress," said Scozzafava in a statement released moments ago.

The reason why Palin and most other Republicans endorsed Hoffman rather than the actual Republican candidate was that they believed that they didn't see much, if any, difference between the Republican and Democratic candidates. As Palin put it in her endorsement announcement on Facebook:

Political parties must stand for something. When Republicans were in the wilderness in the late 1970s, Ronald Reagan knew that the doctrine of "blurring the lines" between parties was not an appropriate way to win elections. Unfortunately, the Republican Party today has decided to choose a candidate who more than blurs the lines, and there is no real difference between the Democrat and the Republican in this race. This is why Doug Hoffman is running on the Conservative Party's ticket.

Republicans' suspicions were confirmed by the former Republican candidate's endorsement for the Democrat.

Exit thought: One of the main reasons why Gingrich said that he endorsed Scozzafavawas that he didn't wanted to show party loyalty and thought that an endorsement of Hoffman would split the party. So what does he think of Scozzafava's endorsement of the Democrat Bill Owens, today?

Pelosi's Treat For Trial Lawyers, Trick For Everyone Else

The folks at the Big Government blog have found a provision buried in the almost 2,000 page healthcare bill that is treat for the lawyers and a trick for the rest of us:

Section 2531, entitled “Medical Liability Alternatives,” establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. [But]…… a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys’ fees or imposes caps on damages.

So, you can’t try to seek alternatives to lawsuits if you’ve actually done something to implement alternatives to lawsuits. Brilliant! The trial lawyers must be very happy today!

Is this the type of tort reform that Obama promised back in the September speech in front of Congress, or did Nancy Pelosi try to sneak an Easter egg for her trial lawyer buddies?

There isn’t any specific number that can be attributed to tort abuse, but most believe the savings to be in the billions, if there were actual tort reform included in the health reform bill nationwide. Alas, this is not exactly the kind of reform that will be needed to drive down costs. By taking away the states’ right to limit lawyer fees or to put caps on how much can be won by the plaintiff, if they win the case, it could only raise medical costs and insurance premiums not lower them.

Yet Another Poll That Fails to Ask the Important Question About the Public Option

Liberals are holding up polls like this up as proof of Americans approval of the Democrats’ healthcare plan including the public option:

In our most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll respondents were asked:

"Which of these would you prefer – (a plan that includes some form of government-sponsored health insurance for people who can’t get affordable private insurance, but is approved without support from Republicans in Congress); or (a plan that is approved with support from Republicans in Congress, but does not include any form of government-sponsored health insurance for people who can’t get affordable private insurance)?"

Fifty one percent said they preferred the public option; 37 percent said they preferred a bill with some support from Republicans in Congress. Six percent said neither and seven percent expressed no opinion.

Many of the polls that they say is proof that the majority of Americans want the current health plan with the public option fail to ask about the potential consequences of such a massive government program, ie bankrupting the country. All they tend to ask about is the their feelings on the public option in more general terms like: Do you like the idea of the public option?

In my post a few days ago, I brought up an interview done with Sen. Mary Landrieu where she hit this problem right on the head:

Asked about polls showing public support for a government plan, Landrieu said the questions should be phrased differently."

I think if you asked, do you want a public option but it would force the government to go bankrupt, people would say no," she said.

I know that I’ve used that quote twice, now, but it just seemed so perfect for this post, as well. It is a good example of the type of polls that Sen. Landrieu and I were talking about yesterday.

To me, this poll shows that people definitely want something done, and they don't care about the partisan squabbling. It doesn't necessarily mean that they want the public option at all costs.

NY23: Scozzafava Quits, What Does This Mean for Republican Party?

A bomb just went off in New York. After the latest Siena poll that showed that the Republican candidate was taking a nose dive, the Scozzafava campaign announced that they were suspending:

Dede Scozzafava, the Republican and Independence parties candidate, announced Saturday that she is suspending her campaign for the 23rd Congressional District and releasing all her supporters.

The state Assemblywoman has not thrown her support to either Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate, or Bill Owens, the Democratic candidate."

Today, I again seek to act for the good of our community," Ms. Scozzafava wrote in a letter to friends and supporters. "It is increasingly clear that pressure is mounting on many of my supporters to shift their support. Consequently, I hereby release those individuals who have endorsed and supported my campaign to transfer their support as they see fit to do so. I am and have always been a proud Republican. It is my hope that with my actions today, my party will emerge stronger and our district and our nation can take an important step towards restoring the enduring strength and economic prosperity that has defined us for generations."

This will free up Hoffman to take most of the voters that would of voted for Scozzafava. There really haven’t been any polls that I’ve seen, yet, that say how many of the her supporters will support Hoffman, but I would say that it is more likely that most will support Hoffman rather than support Owens.

On Twitter, Jordan Raynor asked a good question:

Does Scozzafava dropping out diminish the implications of a Hoffman win nationally? #ny23

I don’t think that it does diminish what has be accomplished by the grassroots Hoffman revolution. In fact, it validates all that it was supposed to achieve. The local Republican party made the choice of running someone who is more middle of the road because they believed that voters were looking for candidates that were more like Obama and other more liberal candidates not like Reagan. They had a rude awakening ever since Palin’s endorsement of Hoffman brought the race into the national spotlight even more than it already was. Palin made the people in the NY23 district take a closer look at Hoffman, and they liked what they saw from him much more than Scozzafava.

As a result, her numbers plummeted, and Hoffman pulled into a virtual tie with the Democrat Bill Owens. Hopefully, the national party is taking notes. We don’t them to run people like John McCain. We need them to realize Reaganism isn’t dead. The liberal agenda of the Obama Administration is awakening people to remember why they don’t want the United States to become a more liberal country.

Lieberman: "Probably Will Support" Future Congressional Republican Candidates

Lieberman is at it again. He must be giving Obama,Pelosi and Reid ulcers by now. He has pretty much gave the finger to the rest of the Democratic establishment especially the liberal wing:

Sounding more like an independent than a Democrat, Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., tells ABC News he will campaign for some Republican candidates during the 2010 midterm elections and may not seek the Democratic Senate nomination when he runs for re-election in 2012.

"I probably will support some Republican candidates for Congress or Senate in the election in 2010. I'm going to call them as I see them,"

"There's a hard core of partisan, passionate, hardcore Republicans," Lieberman said. "There's a hard core of partisan Democrats on the other side. And in between is the larger group, which is people who really want to see the right thing done, or want something good done for this country and them -- and that means, sometimes, the better choice is somebody who's not a Democrat."

This is, actually, quite refreshing to me. Too many times, politicians blindly endorse someone just because they have a D or a R after their name with no regard to their actual stance on the issues. In the name of party unity, they run the risk of cheapening and watering-down the core beliefs of the party by endorsing someone who doesn't best represent the core beliefs of the party. I'm not saying that they have to believe exactly as every other Republican does, but they should be similar.

I believe this is what big Newt ran into when he endorsed Dede Scozzafava for Congress instead of Doug Hoffman, and then, criticized those that didn't follow suit and endorse the Conservative Party candidate.

That type of blind loyalty is a huge part of what is wrong with politics, today. No one thinks for themselves anymore. They are too afraid of upsetting the "party establishment".

It'll be very interesting to see how Reid, Pelosi, etc will respond to this. He almost lost his Senate seat and chairmanship, when he endorsed McCain and spoke at the Republican National Convention. The only reason why he didn't was, probably, because he is the magic number 60 in the Senate. If he keeps bucking them, they may give up on him even if he is number 60.

Michael Steele Backs Hoffman: Two Republicans Are in the Race

In an interview with Politico, Michael Steele caved to the those who were backing the Conservative Candidate Hoffman. He didn't chastise other Republicans like Palin, Armey, Pawlenty, etc for not endorsing their party's candidate:

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said Friday that a victory by Doug Hoffman, the third-party candidate in the Nov. 3 New York special election, is a win for the GOP.

The actual Republican nominee, Dede Scozzafava, trails Hoffman, the Conservative Party nominee, and Democrat Bill Owens by double-digits according to a recent poll. But Steele argued during an interview with POLITICO that the GOP doesn’t need to worry about Scozzafava’s lagging ratings because Hoffman is essentially a Republican.

Unlike Newt Gingrich, Steele doesn't feel that going for Hoffman will destroy the party. In fact, he said that he will embrace the third party candidate:

“I don’t split the party into conservative or not,” he said. “I’m looking as the national chairman to walk out of there one way or the other with a win.”

“You’ve got two Republicans running in that race. My upside is that one of them will likely win,” Steele said. “We want to be supporting the one that wins.”

Asked if he would support Hoffman in 2010 if the Conservative Party candidate won the special election and sought re-election, Steele responded: “Why wouldn’t I?”

“Is he a Republican?” Steele asked. “He’s the Conservative Party nominee, but he ran initially as a Republican.”

This is a change from what has been said, so far, not from Steele himself but other state party leaders who nominated the more liberal Dede Scozzafava who were furious with Republicans from outside their state throwing their candidate under the bus.

Apparently, they've seen the writing on the wall, and the decision has been made by New York's 23rd district. The people want a more conservative Republican candidate not a RINO running for office.

Is the White House Bowling Alley the New Lincoln Bedroom?

This actually came out yesterday, but I was busy at my other job and never got around to posting this.

It looks like Obama is taking a page out of the Clinton Administration:

During his first nine months in office, President Obama has quietly rewarded scores of top Democratic donors with VIP access to the White House, private briefings with administration advisers and invitations to important speeches and town-hall meetings.

High-dollar fundraisers have been promised access to senior White House officials in exchange for pledges to donate $30,400 personally or to bundle $300,000 in contributions ahead of the 2010 midterm elections, according to internal Democratic National Committee documents obtained by The Washington Times.

One top donor described in an interview with The Times being given a birthday visit to the Oval Office. Another was allowed use of a White House-complex bowling alley for his family. Bundlers closest to the president were invited to watch a movie in the red-walled theater in the basement of the presidential mansion.

Mr. Obama invited his top New York bundler, UBS Americas CEO Robert Wolf, to golf with him during the president's Martha's Vineyard vacation in August. At least 39 donors and fundraisers also were treated to a lavish White House reception on St. Patrick's Day, where the fountains on the North and South Lawns were dyed green, photos and video reviewed by The Times and CBS News also show.

This highly unethical, if not illegal. Bill Clinton had a similar scandal involving over 800 high-dollar donators that received sleepover parties in the Lincoln Bedroom. So, this is not a new concept.

This very hypocritical of the Obama Administration. On the campain trail, Robert Gibbs took a shot at Hillary for her husband's Lincoln Bedroom scandal back in Feburary:

"We aren't going to get in the middle of a disagreement between the Clintons and someone who was once one of their biggest supporters. It is ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln bedroom."

Isn't it ironic that a campaign team that chastised Hillary and her husband for a campaign finance scandal involving "renting" time at the White House is now involved in his own scandal?

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.

Updated: WSJ: Public Option Could Triple Insurance Premiums

Democrats claim that the public option will not increase people's current insurance premiums. However, a new study by Wellpoint shows that some insurance premiums could actually triple under the health reform legislation:

At the request of Congressional delegations worried about their constituents—call it a public service—WellPoint mined its own actuarial data to model ObamaCare in the 14 states where it runs Blue Cross plans. The study therefore takes into account market and demographic differences that other industry studies have not, such as the one from the trade group America's Health Insurance Plans, which looked at aggregate national trends.

In all of the 14 states WellPoint scrutinized, ObamaCare would drive up premiums for the small businesses and individuals who are most of WellPoint's customers. (Other big insurers, like Aetna, focus on the market among large businesses.) Young and healthy consumers will see the largest increases—their premiums would more than triple in some states—though average middle-class buyers will pay more too.

In the spirit of full-disclosure, Wellpoint is an insurance company and has their own agenda in this debate. Democrats made this perfectly clear in their response to this report:

"This is yet another insurance-industry report that twists the facts to produce a skewed result," averred Linda Douglass, the White House communications director on health care. Said a spokesman for the Senate Finance Committee, "This is akin to the tobacco companies commissioning another study claiming nicotine isn't addictive and cigarettes don't cause cancer."

You may have to take this report with a grain of salt, but it is still some pretty damning results. It is a very detailed with a lot of stats and analysis to back it up.

Updated

Did Ed Slip Barney Frank Truth Serum? Admits That Their Goal Is To Increase the Role of Government

It's not often that Barney gets attacked from the left and gets told that he's not liberal enough. It's refreshing to hear the some truth from a politician, when he pulled back the curtain on the liberal's true agenda: more government across the board at all costs.

Evan Bayh Joins Blue Dogs Against the Public Option, Further Adding To Reid's Woes

According to Major Garrett on Twitter, here and here, Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) joins Lieberman and Landrieu against Harry Reid's public option plan:

Dem Sen. Evan Bayh tells Fox he's uncommitted on Reid Public Option. "There are a variety of things that I think might work better"


More Bayh: If Public Option raises deficit: "I would have just a very hard time moving forward on something like that."

This is basically the same as both Lieberman and Landrieu said in my last post, but it's interesting that the number of Democrats coming out against the public option is growing rapidly.

Liebermann, Landrieu Throw Reid & His Health Care Reform Bill With Public Option Under the Bus

Just after Harry Reid said that he's close to getting 60 votes in the senate to pass his healthcare reform bill, Sen. Joe Lieberman threw a monkey wrench into the majority leader's plans, earlier today:

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said Tuesday that he’d back a GOP filibuster of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s health care reform bill.

Lieberman, who caucuses with Democrats and is positioning himself as a fiscal hawk on the issue, said he opposes any health care bill that includes a government-run insurance program — even if it includes a provision allowing states to opt out of the program, as Reid’s has said the Senate bill will.

"We're trying to do too much at once," Lieberman said. “To put this government-created insurance company on top of everything else is just asking for trouble for the taxpayers, for the premium payers and for the national debt. I don’t think we need it now."

Lieberman added that he’d vote against a public option plan “even with an opt-out because it still creates a whole new government entitlement program for which taxpayers will be on the line."

His comments confirmed that Reid is short of the 60 votes needed to advance the bill out of the Senate, even after Reid included the opt-out provision. Several other moderate Democrats expressed skepticism at the proposal as well, but most of the wavering Democratic senators did not go as far as Lieberman Tuesday, saying they were waiting to see the details.

The Democrats had been courting Maine Republican Olympia Snowe to vote with the Democrats for a false sense of bi-partisanship and to be a "shield" for the Blue Dogs in their more conservative districts from being labeled a liberal, if they voted for the bill.

Now, they still seem to be having trouble even getting some of their own people to stand behind Reid's bill with the public option. Senator Mary Landrieu had some harsh words to say about the public option, as well::

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) echoed Republican criticisms of a public option today, suggesting it would bankrupt the country.

Describing the public option as a government-run, taxpayer subsidized, national insurance plan, Landrieu said it would likely replicate the problems faced by Medicare and Medicaid.

Why don't we fix the two public options we have now instead of creating a third one, she told NPR's Tell Me More.

Ouch! She hit it on the right on the head here. We already have a program much like the public option plan presented in the bills, and they are going bankrupt. We wouldn't hire the failed CEO of Lehman to run a multi-million business. Why would we get our government with an equally bad track record to run insurance for millions of Americans?

Reid, of course, jumped the gun the other day, when he all but declared "Mission Accomplished!" on the public option battle. Today, we see that is far from reality. We have not heard the last of this, yet.

There have been some polls that say that the majority of Americans like the idea of the public option, but Landrieu blasts the pollsters on how they got those results:

Asked about polls showing public support for a government plan, Landrieu said the questions should be phrased differently.

I think if you asked, do you want a public option but it would force the government to go bankrupt, people would say no, she said.

Again, right on the money. The various pollsters, especially from left-leaning organizations like Kos, intentionally ask the questions in a way to where they are more likely to get a more liberal result.

As the Democrats realize that the public doesn't like their plan overall, the more the Democrats will have to distance themselves from the public option, if they want to be re-elected.

All this does not bode well for the survival of the Reid's bill and the public option.

Great News: Sen. Gillibrand (D-NY): Cap-N-Trade Will Be Good For Wall Street, Economy

In a Wall Street Journal The freshman Democratic senator from New York that replaced Hillary Clinton recently tried to put her own spin on the cap-n-trade debate:

In this turmoil, it may seem hard to imagine a financial market poised to deliver significant growth. However, a rising number of investors and financiers see one in the trading and reduction of carbon. According to financial experts, carbon permits could quickly become the world's largest commodities market, growing to as much as $3 trillion by 2020 from just over $100 billion today. With thousands of firms and energy producers buying and selling permits to emit carbon, transaction fees for exchanges and clearing alone could top nearly half a billion dollars. If Congress establishes proper oversight of a carbon market, New York's financial talent, expertise and institutions are uniquely suited to provide the tools and innovation for a new commodities market of this size. Firms wishing to invest over the long term will need to turn to our financial sector to create the emerging products and provide the capital that would allow them to make green energy investments.

An infrastructure is already beginning to form, as entities like the New York Stock Exchange, J.P. Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and the new Green Exchange are developing carbon trading platforms or expanding their environmental trading desks. There are nearly 100 funds already focused on green investments.

Basically, what she is saying is that instituting a cap-n-trade policy will benefit us economically because it will be able to be traded on the market like any other commodity or stock. That sounds good in theory, but in reality, it will drive up the costs even more.

Let's consider that what she is describing is not unlike what the market is already with oil speculation. Because of oil speculation, the price of gas went up to $4-5 per gallon, needlessly, last summer, and the prices of everything oil-related skyrocketed, as well. The same kind of speculation could happen with the proposed "carbon market".

Carbon trading would be just as disastrous, if not more, than that. Everyone uses carbon-based energy at one time or another, especially when you consider that all of the aforementioned oil-based energy is, also, carbon-based. So, in a way, oil and its derivatives will be traded in the market not just once but twice, driving up the prices of just about everything in the process.

Louisiana Judge Recuses Himself From Marrying Couple Because They're Interracial, Officials Call For Him to Lose Job

Did I just step into a alternate reality where Loving Vs Virginia never outlawed bans on interracial marriages? In this day and age, this is ridiculous.

Keith Bardwell, a white justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish in southeastern Louisiana, wouldn't issue a license to or preside over the nuptials for Beth Humphrey, who is white, and Terence McKay, of Hammond, La., who is black. The two were later married by another area justice of the peace.

Bardwell, who's held his post more than 30 years, said he refused to perform the ceremony because of his concern for the future of the couple's children.

Bardwell told "Early Show" co-anchor Harry Smith , "I've had countless numbers of people that was born in that situation, and that they claim that the blacks or the whites didn't accept the children. And I didn't want to put the children in that position."

First of all, it not his job to worry about their kids that aren't even alive yet. Second, it is blatantly racist and unconstitutional. He should be to resign. After all, I can't see him getting re-elected anyway, not after this stunt.

Gov. Jindal and LA Sen. Landrieu have already called for his resignation. Sen. Vitter is tap-dancing around the issue a bit, but he'll probably follow suit, as well.

Small Donors Push RNC Ahead of DNC Raising Campaign Cash, Debunking the Democratic "Party of the Common Man" Myth?

This story is a couple of days old, but I saw something interesting that I didn't notice anyone else mentioning :

Here’s another data point: the Democratic National Committee said it raised about $8 million in September. That’s less than the Republican National Committee, which raised $8.8 million in the same time period, and the second month running the RNC has pulled ahead.

Overall, the Democrats are still ahead, with $139.4 million raised to date compared to $125 million for the GOP.

That edge is attributable in part to the Democratic fund-raising arms for House and Senate candidates, both of which out-raised their Republican counterparts by nearly two-to-one margins last month.

<*The GOP resurrection, meanwhile, is being aided by a rise in small donors.*> In some of the most competitive 2010 Senate races, Republican candidates raised more than the Democrats did in the most-recent quarter.

This is interesting because Obama was said to have a huge amount of small donors to thank for a huge influx of cash to their campaign war chest. This was used to "prove" that Obama had more "grassroots" support than McCain. Even though, it turned out to be a huge lie and fabrication.

If this is correct, this would show that the "everyday" American are, actually, more inclined to be conservative and side with the Republicans more than the liberal Democrats. That would fly in the face of the belief that Democrats are the party of the common man, and the Republicans are the party of the rich CEOs.

Palate Cleanser: House Committee Unanimously Voted to Continue Investigating Rangel, BiPartisanship

Earlier today, the committee that leads the investigation into Rangel's questionable tax memory has decided that there is enough evidence to keep the lead tax writer for the House on the hot seat for tax evasion:

A House committee voted unanimously Thursday to expand its investigation into New York's Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel, CBS 2 has learned.

Congressman Rangel's sudden recollection this summer of at least $500,000 in cash assets and tens of thousands of dollars of investment income has gotten him into more hot water.

The House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct issued a statement on Thursday that is now going to investigate his apparent lapses in memory as part of a probe that has already lasted 16 months.

Watch Out Mommy: The Taxman Is Coming

New moms may need to redo their budgets and make more room for Uncle Sam because he's coming to reach into their wallets deeper.

When Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus proposed taxing medical devices to raise $40 billion over the next 10 years for his health care plan, opponents started digging in and looking at what would be taxed. It turned out feminine products, like tampons, were classified as class I medical devices and thus, the “tampon tax” was born.

The backlash was quick and severe enough against the idea that the committee quickly drafted new language that would exempt those necessities from the tax, along with all other class I devices, like tongue depressors, and decided to only tax class II medical devices and higher that cost less than $100.

They sure did backpeddle on that one. It was like a 2-yr-old who had his/her hand caught in the cookie jar.

Apparently, they are determined to make women of child-bearing age pay more one way or another:

But, just wait for the revolt to start again because women will still pay a price under the new structure. Particularly new moms who want to use a powered breast pump to bottle milk for their babies. Those devices, labeled class II, typically retails for more than $100.

Unfortunately, they didn't stop there. They decided to go after just about anyone else that might ever need major medical care:

And, all the rest of the more expensive, higher-class medical devices used by both men an women -- such as pacemakers, ventilators, X-ray machines, powered wheelchairs and surgical needles -- will be taxed, too.

As an added slap to the face of the patients that the Democrats are claiming to be trying to save money on health care:

(Wanda Moebius, vice president of policy communications at the Advanced Medical Technology Association) also noted that the proposed taxes would be based on a medical-device producer’s revenue, not profit, which will require businesses to pay more money to the government than a tax on profits.

Great! The political tax machine needs more of our money, and they pulled just about every trick in the book to achieve their objective of paying for the horrendous public option health plan by taxing various aspects of health care. Does robbing Peter to pay Paul mean anything to anyone?

How are they going to save people money on health care, if they are raising taxes on the same health care that they're supposed to be paying less for?

No wonder some Democrats are hesitating to let the media and the rest of us common folk actually have the ablility to read the bills.

Great News: CBO: Deficit Has Tripled This Year, Change Has Come

To be fair, Bush was still in office when the fiscal year started in September of last year. So, one might argue that this deficit isn't 100% Obama's fault, but let's be real, $787B of that is from Obama's Porkulus boondoggle: Now, we have gone from the frying pan and straight into the fire of debt:

The CBO said Wednesday that the deficit for FY09, which ended Sept. 30, totaled about $1.4 trillion, a $950 billion increase over the shortfall posted in FY08.

This on top of the upcoming healthcare reform and climate change bills that will also cost hundreds of billions more. Where are all the Democrats that were terrified of the rising deficits under Bush? Most of them have been silent on this even though Obama's spending is far higher than Bush's.

Much Better Grayson: Doesn't Really WANT People, They Just Don't Care Either Way

Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson does his best John Murtha impression on a local radio show, when he tries to clarify what he really meant, when he said Republicans wants people to die:

In an interview on the local radio show Doc & Grace in the Morning, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) explained that his comments about Republicans have been twisted into meaning that they somehow want Americans to die -- when the real truth is that they don't care.

"You know, this is being transmogrified into something else," Grayson complained. "Honestly, the people I deal with, the people I actually am across the aisle with every day, I don't think they care about ordinary people. I don't think that the Republicans in Congress actually have a heart. I'll be honest with you."

"But that's not the same as saying that they want you -- I mean, let's get straight what I said," he explained. "I said their health care plan is 'don't get sick,' and if you do get sick, then die quickly. And what did I mean by that? Because if you get sick and those bills are mounting, and you're in the hospital and you're feeling weaker and weaker, and you've got no way to pay for this, then what are they gonna do for you? Nothing. They're gonna do nothing."

That makes it so much clearer. He's definitely trying to be the Murtha of 2009 and win the award for the stupidest comment of the year by a politician.

One Month After Cash For Clunkers: No Change, Auto Sales Still Falls While Gas Consumption Doesn't

Cash for Clunkers was one the brain-child of Democrats who were looking to stimulate the economy while lowering carbon emissions. This was supposed to more environment-friendly programs designed to revive the flailing car industry:

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood declared in August that, "This is the one stimulus program that seems to be working better than just about any other program."

Unfortunately, it did neither. Just as your humble pundit and others predicted, it was a complete failure:

If that's true, heaven help the other programs. Last week U.S. automakers reported that new car sales for September, the first month since the clunker program expired, sank by 25% from a year earlier. Sales at GM and Chrysler fell by 45% and 42%, respectively. Ford was down about 5%. Some 700,000 cars were sold in the summer under the program as buyers received up to $4,500 to buy a new car they would probably have purchased anyway, so all the program seems to have done is steal those sales from the future. Exactly as critics predicted.

Cash for clunkers had two objectives: help the environment by increasing fuel efficiency, and boost car sales to help Detroit and the economy. It achieved neither. According to Hudson Institute economist Irwin Stelzer, at best "the reduction in gasoline consumption will cut our oil consumption by 0.2 percent per year, or less than a single day's gasoline use." Burton Abrams and George Parsons of the University of Delaware added up the total benefits from reduced gas consumption, environmental improvements and the benefit to car buyers and companies, minus the overall cost of cash for clunkers, and found a net cost of roughly $2,000 per vehicle. Rather than stimulating the economy, the program made the nation as a whole $1.4 billion poorer.

So after Obama, Pelosi, and Reid spent $1.4 billion of our kids money, we're back to where we were before the spending folly.

The Wall-Street Journal article summed it up perfectly. So, I'll end the post with that:

In the category of all-time dumb ideas, cash for clunkers rivals the New Deal brainstorm to slaughter pigs to raise pork prices. The people who really belong in the junk yard are the wizards in Washington who peddled this economic malarkey.

McCain's Chief Campaign Advisor Preemptively Calls Palin's Possible Presidential Run "Catastrophic"

With Palin's already #1 Bestseller, "Going Rogue", set to be released in a few weeks, John McCain's chief strategist from his 2008 presidential campaign, decided to throw Alaska's former governor and potential presidential candidate in 2012 under the bus:

Steve Schmidt, John McCain's former chief campaign strategist, said today that if former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin were to be the Republican nominee, it would be "catastrophic" for the Republican Party.

"I think that she has talents, but my honest view is that she would not be a winning candidate for the Republican candidate in 2012, and in fact, were she to be the nominee, we would have a catastrophic election result."

"In the year since the election has ended, she has done nothing to expand her appeal beyond the base. ... Th[e] independent vote is going to be up for grabs in 2012. That middle of the electorate is going to be determinative of the outcome of the elections. I just don't see that if you look at the things she has done over the year ... that she is going to expand that base in the middle."

This isn't the first time that Mr. Schmidt has gone off against Gov. Palin. Even though they have denied repeatedly, Steve and Nicole Wallace have been called "prime suspects" in the search for the origination of the leaks that said there was in-fighting in the McCain camp. After all, the main source of information that was leaked was an exchange of emails between Palin and Schmidt "magically appeared" in the media's inbox. So, it was either someone close to Palin or Schmidt, and Palin had nothing to gain at all from their release. So, that leaves Schmidt.

As Allahpundit points out, the upcoming Palin memoir will, more than likely, include some unsavory comments about her experiences on the 2008 campaign trail. Many of those comments may be directed at Mr. Schmidt, and may be trying to get the first shot in before Palin drops her bombshell on November 17.

What gets me the most about what he said above is that he seems so certain that a Palin candidacy would be a disaster based on her lack of exposure and action now, over three years away from the next presidential election, but later on in the same interview he says this:

"What counts politically is where we are a year from today." Schmidt said that while he thinks 2010 will be a "good Republican year," it won't be a referendum on President Obama.

So, let me get this straight. Since Palin isn't calling a press conference once a week or attacking Obama's policy everyday in the news today, she is going to lose three years in the future, but for Obama, what happens now won't affect him much, politically, a year from now. That's a bit of a double standard.

Sarah Palin is, probably, doing the smart thing, right now. She is, for the most part, keeping a low but not invisible profile. She'll release a statement about something that is going through Congress or being pushed by Obama every few weeks.

If she exposed herself more this far before 2012, people would be tired of hearing her name by the time the election came around. She has plenty of time to get her agenda across the voting public.before the Iowa primary. What's the rush?

Of course, there is a chance that she could have a Couric-like moment, and it'll sink her chances. However, how would that sink the whole party as Schmidt suggests?

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.

House Republican Leadership Set Their Sights on Charlie Rangel's Committee Chairmanship

With an investigation underway and possible disciplinary hearing pending regarding Charlie Rangel's alleged tax evasion, Republicans have begun pushing for Charlie Rangel, Democrat, to step down from the head of the "tax-writing" committee:

House Republicans are attempting to turn the heat up the heat on Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel with a plan to offer a resolution next week calling on the New York Democrat to relinquish his gavel until an ethics investigation is completed.

The privileged resolution will be offered by Texas GOP Rep. John Carter, an elected member of House leadership. It is the third such attempt by House Republicans to highlight the ethical problems surrounding the veteran lawmaker.

It would be the first resolution offered on the House floor since Rangel filed amended disclosure reports in August that showed at least $500,000 in previously unreported assets.

“To allow Mr. Rangel to continue to serve as chairman is the same as allowing a confessed bank robber to serve as Chairman of the Banking Committee during the trial,” Carter said in a statement on his intention to offer the resolution unless Rangel voluntarily resigns before next week (which is unlikely)

In response, Rep. Rangel said that it is "unfair" that they want him to step down while he is under a disciplinary committee determines whether he is guilty of a felony or not.

I don't know why it's "unfair". Eliot Spitzer had to resign because of a misdemeanor. Why is it so "unfair" to step down because of a felony?

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case Concerning Constitutionality of Local Handgun Bans Next Year

One of the first cases that the new Supreme Court, with the addition of Justice Sotomayor, will be a case involving an issue of apprehension for conservatives, the local application of the Second Amendment:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to decide whether strict local and state gun control laws violate the Second Amendment, ensuring another high-profile battle over the rights of gun owners. The court said it will review a lower court ruling that upheld a handgun ban in Chicago. Gun rights supporters challenged gun laws in Chicago and some suburbs immediately following the high court's decision in June 2008 that struck down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia, a federal enclave.

The last court, with Souter, decided against a similar ban in DC, earlier this year. However, since DC is a federal district and not an independent city or state, it doesn't automatically {pertain} to the rest of America on a local government level. So, the court took this opportunity to clarify their position on the issue.

As an appellate judge, Sotomayor decided in a case similar to this one in New York. That particular case was, also, appealed, but the Chicago case was taken instead. So, Sotomayor wouldn't have to recuse herself.

In the New York case, she voted to uphold the ban just as Souter voted to uphold the DC ban. So, the court didn't tilt anymore to the left with the addition of Justice Sotomayor. The dynamic of the is the same as before. As a result, there is a very good chance that the court will rule the same way and overturn all total handgun bans across the country. That would be a major victory for the Second Amendment.

The case will be heard sometime next year.

Exit Thought:

I find it extra delicious that they are using a case from Obama's home district. Was it intentional?