A Mass-a-ive Embarrassment

Forget Michele Bachmann’s demand that we investigate which Representatives and Senators are real Americans. Forget Liz Cheney’s desire to smoke out all those al Qaeda loving Department of Justice employees. What we really need to do in full-blown McCarthy style is to weed out the whack jobs!

Now of course, the aforementioned Bachmann is near the top of the list but insanity knows no political affiliation. The latest case is that of New York Representative Eric Massa. Massa announced he wouldn’t run for another term for health reasons, then said he was resigning because his fellow Democrats wanted to get rid of him. As it turns out he was facing an ethics investigation for inappropriate behavior with staffers. Glenn Beck smelled blood and booked Massa for a full hour in the hope of getting at some deep dark Democratic conspiracy to silence possible opposition to health care legislation. Then one of my favorite “Law and Order” plot devices was employed. Have you ever seen DA McCoy put a guy on the stand and then the guy does a complete 180 with his testimony, endangering McCoy’s chances at a conviction? Well that is exactly what happened to Beck. He put Massa “on the stand” and Massa did a complete 180, claiming that he had no one to blame for his resignation but himself. Later that night he went on CNN’s “Larry King Live” and announced that he wouldn’t answer whether or not he was gay. He just told Larry to ask his wife, his friends and his Navy buddies.

As if matters could not get worse, Josh Green of The Atlantic decided to take Massa up on his offer and interview a few of his old Navy cohorts. The verdict? Back in the Navy Massa made unwanted advances on fellow sailors.

On tonight’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann”, guest host Lawrence O’Donnell interviewed comedian-cum-pundit Bill Maher who made a frightening observation. Essentially Maher said that to get elected to Congress all you have to do is memorize the right talking points and then charm the voters into electing you. You don’t have to be very smart and you can be flat-out crazy. This got me to thinking about the current mistrust of government. I have always interpreted it as a purely political position, one currently being exploited to the hilt by Republicans. But when you look at Bachmann, Grassley, Massa, Rangel and a list of others you see that this goes way beyond politics. We have a lot of very flawed people running our government. The easy answer is that as voters, we get what we deserve. Still one has to think, when one gets beyond Massa as a punchline, that this man had authority to vote on matters of grave interest to our country. This guy is clearly bonkers. How many of him are in Washington? Do we really have a problem here and if so, how in the world do we solve it?

An Unintended Consequence

Unfortunately, one of the aftershocks of the Massa fiasco that I have not yet seen in the main stream media but that I expect to see any day now, is the issue of his behavior in the Navy. This is just the kind of thing that advocates of “don’t ask don’t tell” cite as their worst nightmare. The folks interviewed by The Atlantic said they did not press charges against Massa because he was in a position of power on the ship and reporting his harassment would make waves, no pun intended. The important point to emphasize here is that heterosexual harassment is common in the military but the key difference that DADT advocates will cite is that Massa shared living quarters with at least one of the men he allegedly harassed, thereby facilitating the harassment. Then again, would DADT deter someone like Massa? Not likely. We will have to see how and if this plays out but it isn’t a good development for gay rights advocates.

Hypocrisy or Proper Representation?

Inasmuch as we’re discussing gay politicians, the case of Roy Ashburn, a State Senator from California, raises an interesting question. Ashburn has been in the closet his entire political career and voted against every pro-gay legislation that has come down the pike. When he was arrested for DUI on his way back from a gay bar, he decided to announce his sexual orientation. Faced with the seeming contradiction of his voting record he said, “I felt my duty – and I still feel this way – is to represent my constituents, not my own point of view, not my own internal conflict.” via Roy Ashburn, California State Senator, Says He’s Gay After DUI Arrest.

Is an elected representative sworn to reflect the wishes of his constituents or should his personal views play a dominant role? One of the constant debate points regarding health care reform is that our government is passing legislation that “the people” don’t want (a bogus claim but let’s run with it) and that the majority party is enforcing its sense of moral outrage on the rest of us, deciding what is best for us.

It will be interesting to see how Ashburn’s fellow Republicans handle this. Putting aside the DUI arrest which is unseemly, will the California GOP defend Ashburn based on his voting record and ignore his proclivities? Will they embrace him as a “log  cabin Republican” in much the same way that the recent CPAC convention embraced GOPride, a conservative gay group?

Most importantly, is Ashburn a hypocrite or just a good legislator doing what his constituents sent him to the California Senate to do?

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Advertisements

166 thoughts on “A Mass-a-ive Embarrassment

  1. Rutherford,

    Your lameness actually makes me giggle. You’re like Bongo when he wants bad news released on late Friday afternoon. You always post late at night as it gives you a chance to run from the crime scene, always returning mid morning to find you’ve been found too incompetent to stand trial.

    Now I know you’re incredibly obsessed with Conservative woman as you have made that abundantly clear on your blog, and I sense it is because you’ve never had any of the good stuff :wink:, but to even mention Michelle Bachmann in the same sentence with this Massa queer is so beyond reality that it makes me think you’ve been neutered. You’ve got to stop this repetitive self-destruction with your anger. I sincerely hope I’ve been a small part of that! 😈 Think of most of us as here to help with the anger issues. 😛

    See you and Casper Bill Maher share something in common besides you’re flying first class, warp speed towards hell. You both think of yourself as somehow, so superior in intellect that only you are the arbiter of all that is smart. The fact that you’re both getting your asses caned politically at the moment is witness not only that you’re both completely deluded, but possibly that you’re both bipolar.

    I’ll answer your leading questions tomorrow, but tonight let us have a toast! This must have happened while I was busy with school.

    Not even these outrageous lies of yours like America wants BombaCare (are you in for a surprise) can ruin my mood. I’m way behind the times, but I found out tonight the greasiest turd in Congress resigned and I didn’t even know it. If I ever get the chance to frag a politician, it will be Robert Wexlar. That lying, gutless coward is gone and I didn’t even have the chance to celebrate it.

    Now that is worth me buying a lib a drink!

  2. Oh Tex … I tend to post at night because it’s quietest in the house then and I can concentrate. I do so, much to my wife’s irritation. Sometimes, I manage to knock off a quick one in the afternoon but thanks to 3 years of running a third shift data center, my body clock is permanently damaged and I come alive at 11pm.

    It’s a curse, 😦

  3. “r”,

    For all your shortcomings, and they are many, you’re a good man. Captain Picard and I thank you for the fix…

  4. “Is an elected representative sworn to reflect the wishes of his constituents or should his personal views play a dominant role? One of the constant debate points regarding health care reform is that our government is passing legislation that “the people” don’t want (a bogus claim but let’s run with it) and that the majority party is enforcing its sense of moral outrage on the rest of us, deciding what is best for us.” — R

    I’ve posted the polls- they are all against current Dem/Obama plan. So tell me, if the opposite of for something is against something, how can you make the bogus claim?

    Really, these mental gymnastics should be fun…

  5. If you want to talk about massive embarrassments, look at your own party…

    House Democrats looking at ‘Slaughter Solution’ to pass Obamacare without a vote on Senate bill
    By: Mark Tapscott
    Editorial Page Editor
    03/10/10 4:17 PM EST

    Would House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her fellow House Democratic leaders try to cram the Senate version of Obamacare through the House without actually having a recorded vote on the bill?

    Not only is the answer yes, they would, they have figured out a way to do it, according to National Journal’s Congress Daily:

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

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

    “Slaughter has not taken the plan to Speaker Pelosi as Democrats await CBO scores on the corrections bill. ‘Once the CBO gives us the score, we’ll spring right on it,’ she said.”

    Each bill that comes before the House for a vote on final passage must be given a rule that determines things like whether the minority would be able to offer amendments to it from the floor.

    In the Slaughter Solution, the rule would declare that the House “deems” the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the House. House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but House members would be able to say they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself.

    Would that rationale fly with the public? A blog post on House Minority Leader John Boehner’s blog described the approach as a “twisted scheme.”

    How much fun will it be for Democrats representing congressional districts carried by John McCain in 2008 to be constantly reminded about the Cornhusker Bargain, the Louisiana Purchase, the Slaughter Solution, the death panels, $500 billion in cuts to Medicare, individual mandates, etc. etc.

    Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/House-Democrats-looking-at-Slaughter-Solution-to-pass-Obamacare-without-a-vote-on-Senate-bill-87267402.html#ixzz0hrgYWQPh

  6. “r”,

    One thing you never bothered to mention.

    Assuming this Massa “boner” (cough, cough) is telling even a shred of truth about ‘Tiny Dancer’ Emanuel & the Dimocratic Administration’s actions, you just witnessed an entire district of people be disenfranchised without any due process. And the fact that many suspect this to be true, and that the discourse has now sunk to bathroom jokes, is a direct reflection on the Obama Administration. Even Clinton had adults running the parlor even if Wild Bill wasn’t – this is a 3-ring circus.

    Do you ever even give thought to how lousy Obama’s own hand picked cabinet selections have served him? At least Hillary Rotten Clinton hasn’t embarrassed the President yet. But short of Hillary and Robert Gates, a Bush holdover, virtually everyone of the idiots looks more the goon and loon than public servant.

    If Obama hasn’t quite yet proven himself the worst President ever, his cabinet certainly has. It’s the gang that can’t shoot straight. They’re a disgrace.

  7. By the way, I was going to tell you that I’m not really frequenting your blog as often as it may look. For some reason, these WordPress sites are not being found, or simply dropped from my end (I guess).

  8. The brilliant Victor David Hansen on Obama’s Great Gift to Bush And Rutherford, you can’t say VDH isn’t fair because he notes a parallel in weakness with even Reagan.

    excerpt:

    A Fraud of the Highest Order

    Within a year Obama has demonstrated two elemental truths: the opposition to Bush on all matters of anti-terror was never principled, but wholly partisan, which explains why all these issues are no longer the subjects of rallies, protests, Hollywood outbursts, etc. (Where is Code Pink or Cindy Sheehan on the network news?)

    We won’t see a new movie called Rendition II or Redacted—Again, or any more Oscar ceremonies with foaming celebrities damning the president for keeping open Guantanamo or blowing up a wife or child of a suspected terrorist. Harry Reid won’t declare Iraq lost; and Joe Biden won’t demand a trisection of Iraq. Nor will civil libertarians disrupt appearances of David Axelrod or Rahm Emanuel in the manner they once heckled Bush operatives.

    I say that not out of partisanship, but simply emphasize empirically that we have not seen loud protests against the Obama anti-terrorism agenda that in substance (forget the rhetoric) is increasingly identical to Bush’s. (I guess this is sort of like the Right’s silence when Reagan helped run up deficits and signed the worst amnesty possible in the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli Act.)

    Euros on the Bandwagon

    Second, Obama’s Bush 2.0 policies revealed anti-Americanism abroad to be an even greater fraud. All those European protests, the UN showboating aimed at Bush’s Guantanamo and Iraq, or the Spanish threats to try Americans dissipated when Obama was inaugurated. Indeed, Obama as Bush 2.0 received the Nobel Peace Prize (rather than fighting off a Spanish or Hague summons for blowing up hundreds in Predator attacks in Waziristan.) This revelation of European hypocrisy also has been a great gift to Bush and the American people at large — exposing anti-Americanism abroad as a boutique rage among opportunistic elites, but otherwise having little if anything to do with facts or truth.

    Read it all…

    http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/obamas-great-gift-to-bush/2/

  9. We have a lot of very flawed people running our government.

    Too true!

    …and that the majority party is enforcing its sense of moral outrage on the rest of us, deciding what is best for us.

    That can cut a couple of ways at least R. Not the least being that amongst all those flawed folks many of them are elitists too often default to doing what they think is right.
    How does that jive with true and false populism? All and all I vote for a platform of ideas and some character. A politicians personal agendas need to stay at home unless they announce them as policy points.

  10. Is an elected representative sworn to reflect the wishes of his constituents or should his personal views play a dominant role?

    If the person is honest about who they are and what their beliefs are when they run, then the people know who they’re electing. And that should reduce the schism between “reflecting the wishes of their constituents” and their personal views.

  11. I’m not quite sure how Rutherford can take a wholly Democratic scandal, (that is, both Massa’s behavior, and the Dem caucus keeping quite about it until his no vote on Obamacare), and manage to imply that the Republicans are at fault.

    I’m a hyperpartisan guy and I can’t make that leap.

  12. If the person is honest about who they are and what their beliefs are when they run, then the people know who they’re electing. And that should reduce the schism between “reflecting the wishes of their constituents” and their personal views.

    My wife made this very observation this morning. I must admit to my own chagrin that I didn’t think about the whole issue of people electing those who reflect their views. Hence if Ashburn led his potential constituents pre-election to believe that he was anti-gay, when he was in fact gay, that does make him a hypocrite.

    So, thank you BiW (and wife) for answering one of the questions posed in this article.

    P.S. I assure you, Twitter loves me. 😉

  13. G, regarding the Slaughter Solution, I quote the great Malcolm X:

    By any means necessary.

    That is what it may come down to although I’d personally prefer that things look as straightforward as possible.

  14. I’ve posted the polls

    G, how many times do we need to go over this? Each element of the bill when presented in isolation gets public support. The bill taken in one swallow gets a thumbs down. This is theater not substance. Last time I looked, 70% of people want the availability of a public option.

    Your team has successfully scared the public with regard to the 2000 pager. Obama dropped the ball on where he focused. He should NEVER have focused on cost control. He should have made it a moral argument from the start.

  15. G, regarding the Slaughter Solution, I quote the great Malcolm X:

    By any means necessary.

    That is what it may come down to although I’d personally prefer that things look as straightforward as possible.

    A moment of shocking candor and clarity from R.

    Let me return the favor:

    Do not be surprised when you reap what you sew.

    Someone has already phrased it far more elegantly than I:

    That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

  16. My wife made this very observation this morning. I must admit to my own chagrin that I didn’t think about the whole issue of people electing those who reflect their views.

    That doesn’t surprise me. I’m not sure many Dhimicratic voters would ever conceive of the idea of voting differently than what their union of community organizers would instruct. That just isn’t done.

    Hence if Ashburn led his potential constituents pre-election to believe that he was anti-gay, when he was in fact gay, that does make him a hypocrite.

    Or maybe he doesn’t like those tendencies in himself, and he doesn’t believe that his desires should somehow be the basis of social policy?

  17. You know what I find strange, but all to typical in all this?

    The “family-values” Republicans have had the Ensign sex scandal, which appears to include possible criminal misconduct, David Vitter got caught with a prostitute and not only did he stay in office, but he’s seeking re-election, Mark Sanford’s sex scandal got plenty of coverage, but note that he’s still the governor, Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons found himself in a sex scandal, but he stayed in his job and is running for another term, and finally former Sen. Larry (gay airport sex) Craig was caught up in an especially humiliating controversy, but he didn’t resign before the end of his term.

    Hello, Glenn Beck!

    Here’s your corruption for you! When do we get the hour-long show that could “change the course of this nation?”

    ….Yeah. That’s what I thought.

    Both Vitter and Ensign were applauded on the Senate floor by the fellow Republicans.

    Spitzer got caught in a sex scandal and was gone I think in less than a week. Massa resigned whether he was forced to or not, and John Edwards will never serve in public office again.

    Democrats get in trouble? Smear them forever. Republicans get in trouble? Ignore, or excuse.

    It is yet another example of superior politicking by the GOP. They refuse to step down and wait. The story dies. The Democrats don’t understand messaging and the media.

  18. “Hence if Ashburn led his potential constituents pre-election to believe that he was anti-gay, when he was in fact gay, that does make him a hypocrite.”

    Does that hypocrite label include politicians who lead their potential constituents pre-election to believe that they are:

    anti-pork
    anti-lobbyist
    anti-CIA Black Site
    anti-signing statements
    anti-warrantless wiretapping
    anti-indefinately holding terrorists
    transparent
    the most ethical ever

    when they are, in fact, none of those things?

  19. It is yet another example of superior politicking by the GOP. They refuse to step down and wait. The story dies. The Democrats don’t understand messaging and the media.

    Delusion in conjunction with hyper paranoia is such a sad, sad thing to witness. I picture Wally ripping his pubes out about now over the dismal failure of his dream, after telling me Conservatives would be relegated to history…

    But the speed of the glaring deficit of character, misplaced direction, and sheer incompetence of Wally’s beloved party has shocked even me. I never dreamed they could be such failures in such a record time. 😮

    Here’s to you Jimmy Carter. They need your help now more than ever.

  20. “G, how many times do we need to go over this? Each element of the bill when presented in isolation gets public support.”-Rutherford

    Yeah G, how can you be so short sighted? I’ve done some polling myself. Turns out, when in “isolation” (as in isolation for how we pay the bill) people are for the following

    Ford Mustangs upon registering for the draft

    Brand new Nike shoes given to all tax payers on Jan 1 in an effort to improve fitness

    Starbucks coffee mess for all Department of Motor Vehicles locations

  21. “Democrats get in trouble? Smear them forever. Republicans get in trouble? Ignore, or excuse.

    Easily rebutted.

    Charlie. Rangle.”

    Ted Kennedy.

  22. The Democrats don’t understand messaging and the media.

    Damn right they don’t. Absolutely piss poor at messaging. But Curator, I want you to notice something. Now that David Plouffe is back in the fold, Obama is on fire again, delivering memorable speeches full of righteous anger. This is what we needed 10 months ago.

    Two big strategic mistakes.

    1) Plouffe allowed Obama for America (which became Organizing for America post-election) to get subsumed under the DNC where it was summarily de-fanged. A great article on that can be found here.

    2) Plouffe was not strongly encouraged to go to Washington post-election. No one else inside Obama’s inner circle has Plouffe’s populist instincts. There’s no way Plouffe would have allowed Obama to sit on his ass through 75% of the health care struggle.

  23. Well Ted Kennedy is an interesting example because you dudes haven’t stopped talking about Chappaquiddick for the past 40 years … even his death didn’t stop the talk. So it was hardly forgive and forget. Fortunately the voters of Massachusetts had their priorities straight.

    What’s funny is I don’t think it is too far off to say that Scott Brown ran a Kennedy-esque campaign. I don’t mean ideologically, I mean stylistically. And much of what got Teddy back to the Senate term after term was style.

  24. You still haven’t figured out that Barack Obama is not a leader, have you?

    That’s why he has sat on his ass through 75% (or more) of his entire political career!

  25. Hey Tex, the problem with those damn avatars is sometimes they’re too small for my almost-49 year old eyes to see clearly. I see that Obama is the “dummy” but who is the ventriloquist?

  26. “Well Ted Kennedy is an interesting example because you dudes haven’t stopped talking about Chappaquiddick for the past 40 years … even his death didn’t stop the talk. ”

    And you dudes never started.

    What was the term used above?

    Oh yes…”Ignore, or excuse”

    For 40 friggen years.

  27. Well “LOL”, I’d quibble with a couple of the items on your list but overall I’d say Obama was and still is against everything on your list (except he’s for transparency and ethics). What one prefers to do in governing sometimes conflicts with reality. I think that happened in particular in certain national security areas. I think he discovered when he got there that some of what he genuinely wanted could not be done immediately. I don’t hold that against him.

  28. BiW I thought Rangel was just dissed by the House Ethics committee which I assume is chaired by a Dem. Hardly a case of ignoring. Rangel stepped down from his leadership position and if you don’t think some pressure was brought to bear behind the scenes to make that happen, then you must also believe in the tooth fairy.

  29. Or maybe he doesn’t like those tendencies in himself, and he doesn’t believe that his desires should somehow be the basis of social policy?

    Well now I have to take back the thank you I gave you for answering the question since you’ve opened up a new area of ambiguity.

  30. I’m not sure many Dhimicratic voters would ever conceive of the idea of voting differently than what their union of community organizers would instruct.

    That’s hilarious. After 8 years of Republican zombies voting for Bush’s every whim, you accuse liberals of blindly following the party line. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

  31. That’s hilarious. After 8 years of Republican zombies voting for Bush’s every whim, you accuse liberals of blindly following the party line. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

    I’m not talking about all the hyphenated –ists in Congress busy adding to the grease on their already shameful little palms. I’m talking about the unions members and dead people voting multiple times who helped put them there.

  32. But by all means wingnuts, please keep applauding your adulterous politicians. So much for your “family values”, and “defense of marriage”.

  33. Hence if Ashburn led his potential constituents pre-election to believe that he was anti-gay, when he was in fact gay, that does make him a hypocrite.

    It’s entirely possible that he was anti-gay legislation without being anti-gay. There’s no law that says just because someone is gay, they have to adhere to the “gay agenda.”

    You make the argument seem that just because he was gay, he was obligated to support legislation that favors gays.

  34. But by all means wingnuts, please keep applauding your adulterous politicians. So much for your “family values”, and “defense of marriage”.

    Who’s applauding them?

    I think we do deserve an explanation of how the Chair of the Commtitee that writes tax policy can stay for so long after getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar repeatedly, though. I really don’t think that’s too much to ask.

  35. Now that David Plouffe is back in the fold, Obama is on fire again, delivering memorable speeches full of righteous anger. This is what we needed 10 months ago.

    ** GUFFAW **

    On fire so much, today I noticed Zero has dropped to the lowest level evah in the polls. Rutherford my friend, the problem isn’t the level of righteous anger of Zero, but the message of ginormous government by Zero.

    You can resurrect Thomas Jefferson to write Zero’s speeches and he ain’t going to sell anymore. All but knuckleheads now see that Zero is a teleprompting buffoon.

    But by all means, line this Plouffe up (great name for a target). I’d like a shot at his worthless ass too. He needs to share in the blame of selling us a lemon.

  36. Oh, I didn’t answer you question. Yes, Obama is the wooden headed dummy.

    That’s Dead Fish pulling his strings…

  37. You make the argument seem that just because he was gay, he was obligated to support legislation that favors gays.

    Actually, in the article I made no such argument. In fact, this is a rare article where I really just ask questions and don’t take a stand one way or the other (at least in the Ashburn section).

    However, since you mentioned it, why would anyone vote against self-interest? That is why there is a valid assumption that a gay person would support pro-gay legislation.

    For the life of me, I don’t really understand how log cabin Republicans have made peace with the GOP and vice versa. I used to really be puzzled by Andrew Sullivan but he has finally come to his senses and denounced the GOP.

  38. Regarding how long we knew Charlie was a tax cheat, hey we need to get real. The dude was influential and powerful and it’s hard to take anyone in that position down, regardless of party.

  39. Regarding how long we knew Charlie was a tax cheat, hey we need to get real. The dude was influential and powerful and it’s hard to take anyone in that position down, regardless of party.

    I suppose that’s true. Afterall, Lil’ Timmy Geither still has a job at Treasury.

  40. BiW, in the words of Ronnie Reagan, “there you go again” comparing the Obama administration to pre-Revolutionary Great Britain. Jefferson’s words were directed at an oppressive government. The Founding Fathers then created a Constitution that brilliantly paved the way for a country that could sustain itself through disagreements and disputes through the rule of law.

    Obama has hardly undone that. There is a simple bottom line that deflates all of your Boston Tea Party rhetoric. If Obama and the Dem congress screw up, they will be booted out on their ass by the voters. If the voters hate HCR then the already announced strategy of the GOP to run on repealing the law, will win the day, they will be elected and the legislation will be repealed.

    For such patriots, you, G, Tex and some others sure don’t have a lot of faith in our democracy. 😉

  41. The Founding Fathers then created a Constitution that brilliantly paved the way for a country that could sustain itself through disagreements and disputes through the rule of law.

    And the Left continues to attempt to subvert those brilliant restraints when they chafe at the Left’s ambitions.

  42. Oh for the love of…

    Damn, when I googled Dead Fish i saw an article making a reference to Rahm but I still thought it might be some obscure movie character or something. 😆 Hey, like I said, my middle aged eyes couldn’t make out who he was.

    So BiW, I thank you, Tex thanks you and your grateful country thanks you. 😉

  43. “What one prefers to do in governing sometimes conflicts with reality. I think that happened in particular in certain national security areas. I think he discovered when he got there that some of what he genuinely wanted could not be done immediately.”

    So what you are saying is…Barack Obama didn’t know what the hell he was talking about for those 2 years?

    Who’da thunk?….

  44. However, since you mentioned it, why would anyone vote against self-interest? That is why there is a valid assumption that a gay person would support pro-gay legislation.

    Perhaps he realizes that to strengthen the rights of one group weakens the rights of all. We’re supposed to all be equal under the law. But by carving out exceptions and such for “protected classes” weakens the protections of the population as a whole.

  45. What polls? R, show your work.

    If Democrats ignore health-care polls, midterms will be costly
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/11/AR2010031102904.html

    This was written by DEM pollsters.

    Also, sot he means justify the ends? Wow, how fascist of you. Once again, R demonstrates the elitist tendencies which are omnipresent within the liberal left.

    The sheep can’t think for themselves, and even if they do- they’re wrong, so we the intellectually elite must take this burden (back of hand goes to forehead) for them…

    I’m noticing more and more that you don’t like hard questions, meaning, questions that revolve around fact. You’re not answering my comments or questions, and quite frankly, while these little windows into your ideological mindset are fun, I can get the same thing from DailyKos.

    I guess I expected more…

  46. Poverty, health care, taxes, amnesty, it is always the same solution with progressives.

    Creating and fostering dependency is what the Left is all about. It always has been – plantation masters of a different stripe.

  47. So what you are saying is…Barack Obama didn’t know what the hell he was talking about for those 2 years?

    To use your language, the truth is no Presidential hopeful knows what the hell he is talking about until he gets in the job. Then he performs as close to his ideals as practically possible.

  48. Stupak notes that his negotiations with House Democratic leaders in recent days have been revealing. “I really believe that the Democratic leadership is simply unwilling to change its stance,” he says. “Their position says that women, especially those without means available, should have their abortions covered.” The arguments they have made to him in recent deliberations, he adds, “are a pretty sad commentary on the state of the Democratic party.”

    What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”

  49. “Throughout this debate, even when the House leaders have acknowledged us, it’s always been in a backhanded way,” he laments. “I’m telling the others to hold firm, and we’ll meet next week, but I’m disappointed in my colleagues who said they’d be with us and now they’re not. It’s almost like some right-to-life members don’t want to be bothered. They just want this over.”

    And the politics of the issue are pretty rough. “This has really reached an unhealthy stage,” Stupak says. “People are threatening ethics complaints on me. On the left, they’re really stepping it up. Every day, from Rachel Maddow to the Daily Kos, it keeps coming. Does it bother me? Sure. Does it change my position? No.”

  50. Rutherford fails to understand that he is setting up a an all powerful government that will one day methodically snuff the life out of babies with disabilities just he has.

    Stupak isn’t a quack. He’s just happens to be a liberal with a moral compass. He wouldn’t lie. One of the arguments for keeping the abortion language in the bill is the cost human life would have. We already see it. A government that snuffs out life due for a bag of silver . The death panels are already here.

  51. To use your language, the truth is no Presidential hopeful knows what the hell he is talking about until he gets in the job. Then he performs as close to his ideals as practically possible.

    I call bullshit. While not every Presidential hopeful has an idea of what the job entails, many who have been Vice-President understand exactly what the job entails, regardless of whatever spin they might put on the performance of the duties. (I say “many” because FDR kept Harry S. in the dark about a lot of what what going on.)

  52. DR, sadly once again this all depends on who you believe. Rachel Maddow says Stupak is just plain lying and I actually read the pages of the bill that deal with this and IMHO I think Maddow is right.

    Click the first link on this page to see the actual bill

    http://dpc.senate.gov/dpcdoc-sen_health_care_bill.cfm

    and then go to page 2071 line 19 (cited by Stupak himself). You should also read similar verbiage on page 123 (line 3).

    From what I see, the bill differentiates between abortions that cannot be federally funded and those that can (rape, incest, etc.). For those unrelated to rape or incest or imminent danger of mother, federal funds cannot be used for abortion, The “pay a dollar to the abortion fund” thing stumps me a bit but from what I understand you pay a dollar towards reproductive services only if your policy already covers reproductive services plus I can’t find anything about this $1 fund in the bill (I may have overlooked it in 2000+ pages). It may be in an amendment that I didn’t see,

    The other point that Maddow has made is that Stupak’s concern becomes a kind of broad based paranoia. For example, he seems concerned that if you receive government funds but you use your own money for abortion coverage, that there is no way to separate your money from fed money so in essence the fed is paying for your abortion. Maddow takes this to its absurd limit by saying that if you get food stamps, you can’t get an abortion cos maybe you’re using your food stamp money for abortions. I’d use a more likely example of a fed student loan … gotta make sure you get language in that fed student loan contract that if you get a student loan you can’t get an abortion, cos who’s to say that YOUR money is paying for tuition and the fed money is paying for the abortion.

    I’d give you the Maddow link where she makes the case but I know you hate Maddow so I won’t bother.

    Bottom line, Stupak is creating an imaginary boogie man either by his own true hyper-concern about the subject or by sheer mendacity.

  53. BiW, you’re right about Truman and yes many VP’s got a good idea of what was going in the Oval Office and some did not. In either case, Obama was not a VP so your point is moot other than to point out that I made an over-generalization when I said “no candidate”.

  54. “To use your language, the truth is no Presidential hopeful knows what the hell he is talking about until he gets in the job.”

    Ah, only after you have the job can you really know what you are talking about.

    So are you finally ready to concede that, on the issues I listed, George Bush—being the guy who actually had the job—really did know what he was doing the whole time. And that for 2+ years Barack Obama—being the upstart who had never had the job—really had no clue WTF he was talking about?

  55. Also, not all of the issues I listed are purely presidential issues.

    What defense are you going to mount for the broken promises of congressional democrats?

    You going to tell us Pelosi didn’t have her job long enough to know what promises were realistic?

  56. Hey Rutherford, my wife talked to two head hunters today at a wedding shower.

    Guess what they had to say?

    They are having problems filling jobs in the group insurance industry right now in Michigan! Guess why? Unemployment benefits!

    This bodes well for my wife to get back into the career she once had and out of her dead end job right now.

    But yeah, people are refusing good jobs becuase of hand outs.

  57. Rabbit I wish your wife had asked a follow-up question. Any chance fewer people want to get into an industry with such bad press right now? Then I would have asked another follow-up. What do you base your assessment on? A few anecdotal comments from people?

  58. Yeah, I knew you would come back with the anecdotal line.

    Your right, guy. Free money doesn’t deter many people from getting a job.

    In other news, I can’t get the following things out of my mind.

    Around 30 years ago the government decides to subsidize corn syrup and sugar. The market is flooded with cheap ass junk food. The nation becomes fat asses and now the government will intervene once again on behalf of said fat asses. I can’t wait to see how that works out.

    The government decides everybody should go to college and intervenes. College tuition sky rockets with demand, now my generation is crippled with debt right out of the box.

    The government decides everyone should own a house and intervenes. The demand for housing sky rockets with artificially manipulated interest rates. Wall-street goes buck wild repackaging the the loans amongst the backdrop of an Alice in Wonderland economic bizarro world. Pop. The government now decides to intervene to save the banks and Wall-street makes the same money they would have if the government’s make believe puppet show continued.

    The government decides to improve the lives of black people. They castrate the entire male population creating a situation where black men are no longer needed as providers. 2 hundred years of a strong black family structure is shattered despite enduring during slavery and Jim Crow. The crime rate goes through the roof. The hand outs increase, but are politicized. Black America becomes vote zombies controlled by progressives.

    Now, we are all soon to be black people. House Negros like Rutherford will work in tandem with the vile plantation madam with the hope of emasculating all of us in the field.

    Rutherford, I relish the day your type are tarred and feathered. I want to see your type put on a burrows backwards as we all jeer.

    I look forward to the day that us plantation niggas rise up.

    I know Rutherford.

    I be Sambo. I donts knows whats goods for me. Da Masta whips me for my owns good. Dat ways me don’t gets too much salt in my tripe.

    Sambo was just playing the fool, motherfucker. Sambo never was dumb. He was just waiting for his moment to escape, big smile be damned.

    Whatcha gonna do when 100 million Americans run wild on you, brother!!!!!

    Long live François-Dominique Toussaint Louverture!

  59. I’m basketballed out and needed a break. I see Brotha Rabbit is on a roll.

    ** GUFFAW **

    Wait until Bro. Rutherford reads that one! 😆 😆 😆

  60. More lies from Barry….

    WASHINGTON — Still seeking votes for his proposed health care overhaul, President Barack Obama appears ready to reverse his position and allow unpopular deal-sweetening measures in the hopes of finding Democratic support for legislation whose future will be decided in coming days.
    ….
    Taking a new position, Axelrod said the White House only objects to state-specific arrangements, such as an increase in Medicaid funding for Nebraska, ridiculed as the “Cornhusker Kickback.” That’s being cut, but provisions that could affect more than one state are OK, Axelrod said.

    Now all it takes for a sweetheart deal is for 2 states to insist on it.

    I can’t wait to see Rutherford defend this.

  61. WOW!! Second cousins once removed. They’re practically brothers.

    I talked to a medical student whose next door neighbor knows a guy whose barber voted for Obama. In a minute I’ll have his thoughts on health care reform…. :p

  62. @DR

    So why did Reagan bring a staggering increase in farm subsidies? I thought he was a free market thinker.

    As for the rest of your post you lost me at..

    “They castrate the entire male population…”

    and the rest went off a very deep end.

  63. On another note.

    Talk about embarrassment. The treatment of women in the state of Utah has so much in common with the Taliban these days. The Utah Governor just sign a revised abortion bill stating that it “addresses those situations in which the termination of a pregnancy is intentional and is not conducted at a physician’s direction.”

    Now, any woman who becomes pregnant in Utah has to worry about miscarriage, not just because of the loss of a child, but because a miscarriage in Utah now makes you a suspected criminal.

    Who is to say your slip on the sidewalk was intentional or not? Who is to say your shoveling snow off your sidewalk caused your miscarriage was intentional, because your USAF husband is on his third tour of Bagram AB?

    Next up: all women of childbearing age are forbidden to drive, ride bicycles, drink coffee, attend school or appear in public without a male relative or husband, in an effort to protect any fetus they might be carrying.

    Does sex increase the chance of miscarriage? All pregnant women should refuse to have sex until after the baby is born.

  64. This should gladden the heart of Rutherford Lawson. A superb, self-made black man married to a superb white woman…truly the All-American couple.

    One who happens to be a SCOTUS; the other the justice’s most excellent wife and tea party head.

    Ahhhhhhhh, life is good these days watching “r” scramble for cover and Wally’s excuses getting more lame as each moment passes. 😈

  65. This should gladden the heart of Rutherford Lawson. A superb, self-made black man married to a superb white woman…truly the All-American couple.

    One who happens to be a SCOTUS; the other the justice’s most excellent wife and tea party head.

    Ahhhhhhhh, life is good these days watching “r” scramble for cover and Wally’s excuses getting more lame as each moment passes. 😈

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-thomas14-2010mar14,0,6505384.story

  66. Curator 86 you are playing straw man blogging here. The law actually was vetoed and revised so as not to threaten action against accidental instances.
    On the flip side (and I think you were asked this before) pregnant woman assaulted or murdered with result of dead baby too. How many criminal counts?

  67. The law in Utah is in response to some dumb ass judge letting a girl walk free after paying someone to beat the shit out of her pregnant belly on the grounds that “abortion” is legal .

    Aren’t “home-brewed” abortions illeagal in most states already, making this a non story?

    I haven’t read the law, it seems every news report seems to avoid showing it.

    If this law somehow makes women who endure miscarriages “suspects” then it’s poorly written/enforced.

    However, I have a sneaking suspicion that Utah now has the same law that Michigan has. And God knows I’ve been through enough miscarriages to say with authority we were never deemed “suspects” by anyone.

  68. I said the bill was revised, or don’t you read much? Who will decide whether the miscarriage was intentional or not? What if they don’t know they are pregnant and get into an accident without wearing a seat belt? Who will determine if her car accident wasn’t intentional in the first place?

    I see a lot of abuse of this law by anti abortion zealots.

  69. I read just fine thank you. You said revised but still try to portray it as something it is not. I also would invite you to read the law.You’re tilting at windmills and that’s pathetic.

  70. So Curator, if you’re so concerned why don’t you check other states with the same type of laws? Have many women been wrongfully of accused of homicide due to miscarriage?

    Or are you just wasting my time with bull shit.

  71. I can’t wait to see Rutherford defend this.

    Yeah I saw Axelrod say this on the Sunday morning shows.

    The defense depends on your objection to the Cornhusker deal in the first place. If you object to the principle of trading legislative concession for votes then Axelrod’s statement falls flat on its face. If, on the other hand you object to the exclusivity of the Louisiana purchase or the Cornhusker deal, and then you’re told that state-specific legislation will not be passed, then I don’t see the problem.

  72. Also I left this as a comment on my own blog(yeah I need to do that oh well)

    Speaking about healthcare though….
    Why doesn’t the Left take a lesson from Louisiana who has experienced major upticks in the Medicaid rolls at the same time seen major down ticks in the $$$ to pay for it. Or they could look at the Maryland millionaire tax and it’s results.

    On a sidenote I think the abortion points and this now begs for a new post. Perhaps R you should go to posting just Open Post/Open Thread kind of things every once in awhile.

  73. Strictly on the posts original title etc.
    Massa not a great tool for the GOP cause.
    Would not have gotten kicked curbside if he was a YES for ObamaCare or had more than a term.
    Not a clarion call for Democrat ethics.

  74. What if you object to “provisions that were added to the legislation that shouldn’t have been” like Barack Obama did just 2 weeks ago?

  75. Dudes…..I’ve heard enough from Rutherford now to know that he seriously doesn’t give a damn about obvious lies, contradictions and hypocrisy. It’s pointless.

    Rutherford is a meek little boy with a larger then life role model.

    God help me if I ever jock another man.

    Rutherford is a living representation of the most dangerous kind of citizen in the modern age.

    A blind follower, willing to run the entire country over a cliff upon receiving orders.

    I love the Detroit Tigers. I really do. It may be pathetic, but they are a big part of my life. And becuase I love them I boo them more then I often times cheer them. I’m their worst critic at times. They piss me off. You would think Rutherford would be more like a Tiger fan sometimes.

  76. “The defense depends on your objection to the Cornhusker deal in the first place. If you object to the principle of trading legislative concession for votes then Axelrod’s statement falls flat on its face. If, on the other hand you object to the exclusivity of the Louisiana purchase or the Cornhusker deal, and then you’re told that state-specific legislation will not be passed, then I don’t see the problem.”-Rutherford

    Curator, can even you read this with a straight face? WTF?

  77. I love the Detroit Tigers.

    I’m sorry.

    I used to go to the corner of Michigan and Trumbull so I could watch the other teams, like my Brew Jays (this was back when they didn’t suck). Best thing I could say about the Tiggers was that players like Lou Wittiker, Alan Trammel, and Chet Lemmon played their entire careers for them when they might have been able to play elsewhere.

    “The defense depends on your objection to the Cornhusker deal in the first place. If you object to the principle of trading legislative concession for votes then Axelrod’s statement falls flat on its face. If, on the other hand you object to the exclusivity of the Louisiana purchase or the Cornhusker deal, and then you’re told that state-specific legislation will not be passed, then I don’t see the problem.”-Rutherford

    Forget Curator. I couldn’t read it with a straight face.
    Still, when it’s other people’s money, anything is acceptable, right?

  78. A lot of comments to cover and I didn’t get started till late tonight so it ain’t gonna happen until tomorrow.

    Suffice it to say, Clarence Thomas’ wife going Tea Party is a development right out of some thriller movie plot. Blows my mind. The observation has already been made that she will be speaking at a 4/15 protest when those taxes she hates pay her husband’s salary. You couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried.

  79. R: So pork/bribes for two or three states is cool but pork/bribes for a single state is bad?

    Like I said Alfie, it’s all in how you look at it. Clearly an amendment that singles out Louisiana is different from one that singles out “any state suffering catastrophic loss state-wide” which I believe is the general verbiage.

    And while the “bribes” bothered me a bit at first, I heard an interesting defense today, namely that Landreu did what any dedicated legislator would do for her state. She fought to get them help. You call it a bribe, she calls it playing hardball to get her state the help it needs. If you were in her shoes, you’d probably do the same.

  80. Alfie, regarding 100, not sure I disagree much with it except folks can’t say in one breath Massa was kicked curbside for not supporting Obamacare and then in the next breath say that the Dem’s tried to cover up/ignore the ethics violations. Either they wanted him out or they didn’t.

  81. Mmmm sometimes I wonder if we speak the same language … Rabbit and BiW. What is so hard to understand about the difference between set-asides for a particular state and set-asides for states that qualify under a particular definition. Now if you see language that makes the definition so narrow that only Louisiana could ever fit the definition, then I’m with you. That’s slimy. But otherwise, there is a difference.

    Where’s the WTF moment in any of that?

    P.S. LOL … I’ve been so upside down with time management lately that I only skimmed Rabbit’s sambo comment from earlier. I’ll have to drink it all in later.

    P.P.S. I am more conflicted over this HCR bill than you can imagine. It’s not for any of the reasons that trouble you guys. It is that it is being oversold and I am still questioning whether it’s worth the pain. My desire for a legislative fist up the ignorant Republican collective ass has fogged my mind. I may blog about it tomorrow. This is some tough legislation to get behind without reservation.

  82. “Now if you see language that makes the definition so narrow that only Louisiana could ever fit the definition, then I’m with you. That’s slimy.” — R

    That was the entire stimulus- it was the only way Obama could hope to claim no earmarks with only a smirk. This thing isn’t any different.

    R, Obama said post-Scott Brown that the special deals were going to get pulled out. He’s reneged on that.

    Some idiot Dem in Congress was going on about how FDR gave us Social Security, and LBJ gave us Medicare and now BHO is going to give us healthcare. Well, what do these all have in common?

    THEY’RE FUCKING BROKE.

    Since R refuses to address questions and comments anymore, let’s make a couple things clear.

    Obamacare is Unconstitutional. Period.

    The left tries to use auto insurance as an example, which is crap.

    You are forced to get auto insurance not for yourself, but for the other person in case you get into an accident, and you ONLY have to get auto insurance if you buy a car and drive the roads. And you can even get out of auto insurance, if you have a sufficiently large enough bond to cover the expenses incurred in the event of a fault accident.

    Obamacare legislates an individual mandate to purchase health insurance. The federal government cannot mandate that every man, women and child buy something. Period.

    Secondly, the bill has a provision in it that says that it cannot be repealed, in an obvious attempt to protect it from the foreseeable collapse of Dem control in Congress. That, IMO, is also unconstitutional. The only things that are beyond legislative manipulation are RIGHTS, as defined by the CONSTITUTION. Just because the One calls it a right doesn’t mean that it is.

    R, you have said that the ends justify the means, yet no one can articulate what the means are.

    Does this bill save money? Absolutely not. The CBO has said that it will not bring premium prices down, in fact, it’ll do the exact opposite.

    Does this bill bring down the deficit? Hell no. When you do an honest 10 year analysis on this, it increases the deficit by $1.4 Trillion… the following 10 years increases the deficit by over $2.5 Trillion.

    Is this about taking care of everyone? Of course not. Robert Reich said it best recently while giving a lecture at UC Berkley. Paraphrasing him, he said that young people are going to have to pay more and old people are going to have to go without care because it is too expensive. Sorry, those extra 2, 3, 6, 12 months, not worth it… TO US ON THE LEFT.

    Will it increase competition? No. Insurance companies make a profit, GASP!!! Heaven forbid that a COMMODITY that is bartered in the free market actually have profit tied to it. And even then, no all insurance companies work for profit, there are tons of non-profit health insurance providers. But what happens when the regulator gets involved in the business too? Or the fact that the federal government will ALWAYS turn to the public trough to cover the inevitable red ink that it will endure? It won’t increase competition because it’ll bankrupt private insurers and leave us with a stinking pile of shit called Obamacare.

    The Dems problems on this is that they could have addressed the core issues a piece at a time. They would have had bipartisan support and they’d have kinds of credit right now because of it.

    But this isn’t about healthcare. This is about creating another entitlement program and furthering the pathology of dependency. This is an effort to bring more to the public trough knowing that while they’re distracted by the “free stuff” they are getting, the Dems are undercutting any future potential alternatives to the trough… and then they got you.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcBaSP31Be8

  83. Here’s the bottom line on ObamaCare – one that conveniently gets ignored by Wally, Hippie and Rutherford:

    The quality of our health care will be reduced and cost more for the majority of our families at the same time creating a dependency on more programs that we simply can not afford as a nation.

    There is no way around that resident libs. Even in your elementary math, you can not add 31MM people to the health care rolls without the cost of health care dramatically increasing period. That’s why for four years, they’ll tax us for a benefit no one will receive, including you, at the same time increasing the taxes for an economy that is already going into the dink.

    You Leftists are so blinded by partisan politics for the sake of winning a vote for the man that has so let you down, that you have had to voluntarily shut off what little sense God gave you because you can not admit you were hoodwinked.

    It is time for you guys to be honest and admit that Obama, while appealing to millions for Lord only knows what reason, has proven a failure – such a failure that his ideas of hope and change now are ripping apart the country.

    Anything of substance that Obama promised with gullible rhetoric has only made things worse: the economy, restoring our image, transparency, fighting the war on terror. The world is turning on Obama even with the assistance of a corrupt media that lied to all of us, and you guys can not simply admit you made a gigantic mistake.

    To admit error is beyond all of you. You’re actually quite cowardly for not being able to admit you were wrong about Obama.

  84. Alfie,

    Worse, we have a huge shortage of physicians that are willing to practice “family medicine” because they can’t make money after 11 years of school, and they are now being ask to take approximately a 20% cut in pay from Medicare patients.

    Like I said on BIC’s blog, shouldn’t be too long before you wait in your gov’t health care line and hear the words, “the nurse practitioner will now see you.”

  85. Oh Gorilla, so much garbage and so little time:

    Some idiot Dem in Congress was going on about how FDR gave us Social Security, and LBJ gave us Medicare and now BHO is going to give us healthcare. Well, what do these all have in common?

    THEY’RE FUCKING BROKE.

    Dumb dumb logic. If a school has a high drop out rate, do you declare education bad and close the school or do you fix it? SS and Medicare are good ideas that have not evolved with changing economics. It needs to be fixed. It was not a bad idea that we should just junk.

    Let’s jump to your video. At first I said great …. here are page by page examples that I can go check myself. I’m not even gonna bother. Know why? Because the referenced document is linked from a Republican Rep’s web site and is only 1017 pages long … I call foul and bullshit. The Senate bill is over 2000 pages long and can be found here:

    http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act-as-passed.pdf

    I don’t know what garbage the video was referencing but it was not the passed Senate bill.

    Next:

    You are forced to get auto insurance not for yourself, but for the other person

    When you end up in the ER because you are uninsured, you are costing everyone else money. HCR, in principle makes health care more affordable for everyone.

    Secondly, the bill has a provision in it that says that it cannot be repealed, in an obvious attempt to protect it from the foreseeable collapse of Dem control in Congress.

    Prove it. Chapter and verse please. If what you said was true then there would be no talk in the press right now about Republicans running in November on repealing the bill. Pure BS talking point.

    Does this bill save money? Absolutely not. The CBO has said that it will not bring premium prices down, in fact, it’ll do the exact opposite.

    More BS which you’d know if you’d paid attention to the Summit. Premium prices will go down. What the CBO said is that because folks will suddenly be able to afford better policies there is the potential for overall premium increases. In other words, you have a Pinto, the cost of the Pinto drops, you say hey, I think I’ll go for the SUV (which also has dropped in price) which is now only slightly more expensive than my Pinto used to be and affords me better coverage. This was the Obama/Alexander dispute at the beginning of the Summit which Alexander LOST.

    Does this bill bring down the deficit? Hell no. When you do an honest 10 year analysis on this, it increases the deficit by $1.4 Trillion… the following 10 years increases the deficit by over $2.5 Trillion.

    According to the CBO or the GBO (Gorilla Budgeting Office)? 😀

    Will it increase competition?

    No because you and yours intimidated legislators into rejecting the Public Option.

    Now I’ll do your work for you. Reasons to be unhappy with the bill:

    1. Only children will be protected from the pre-existing condition discrimination for the next 4 years. Adults after that.

    2. Even after the four years, insurance companies can find creative ways to jack up prices for sick clients or in cases of pre-existing conditions. They just can’t do it obviously.

    3. Already stated — without the Public Option, there will be no competition and less incentive for insurance rates to go down.

    4. A large number of people will still not be covered. Hence not universal health care.

  86. Rutherford, you dunce:

    When you end up in the ER because you are uninsured, you are costing everyone else money. HCR, in principle makes health care more affordable for everyone.

    You end up in the ER, you cost everybody money unless you’re paying for it out of your own pocket. Obamacare doesn’t change this simple fact. You really do think the magic man prints money, don’t you?

    Already stated — without the Public Option, there will be no competition and less incentive for insurance rates to go down.

    Baloney. With a public option, there is less incentive because there is no skin in the game for the consumer. I can make a more objective opinion that the lack of insurance actually holds total costs down. Again, I tried to explain this to you that the problem is market driven, but you can’t get that through your thick skull. Where there is no personal responsibility, there is no incentive to defray expense – by definition this adds to the burden.

    You want health care costs to drop like a rock? Revoke all insurance and you’ll find out how much of health care is completely unnecessary.

  87. SS and Medicare are good ideas that have not evolved with changing economics.

    Have not evolved with changing economics?

    And you want to be taken seriously?

    Tell us, Professor Rutherford, how have they not “evolved with changing economics”. Pencil, please. And show your work.

  88. “Prove it. Chapter and verse please. If what you said was true then there would be no talk in the press right now about Republicans running in November on repealing the bill. Pure BS talking point.”

    Actually, it isn’t a BS talking point. It is more than likely a misinterpretation.

    In trying to prove or disprove this claim, I have uncovered yet another piece of gross hypocrisy by congressional democrats.

    On page 1020 is this section:

    “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Dec 24 2009: LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THIS SUBSECTION – It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection”

    That’s what is causing the belief that this..or parts of this…cannot be undone.

    What disproves that claim is the paragraph that follows. And it is also the source of hypocrisy.

    “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Dec 24 2009: WAIVER – This paragraph may be waived or suspended in the senate only by the affirmative votes of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.”

    And how many is 3/5 of the senate? 60.

    Democrats are placing higher standards on the people who want to revise this bill than they want to place on themselves for passing this bill.

    That is the fucking mother of all hypocrisy in this whole thing.

  89. BIC,

    I read a statistic the other day that was startling. Medicare is now 849% more expensive than originally estimated. And Rutherford thinks Medicare “hasn’t evolved” with changing economics?

    It simply boggles my mind that an educated man like Rutherford who can write as well as he can, can not grasp simple constructs of economics.

    Rutherford more than most must have to lie to himself continually in not noticing how incredibly inefficient our government is.

  90. The Associated Press reports on how well that whole “transparency” thing is working out.

    WASHINGTON — The government’s use of legal exemptions to keep records secret rose during President Barack Obama’s first year in office, despite promises of increased openness, an Associated Press review found.
    ….
    Major agencies cited that exemption to refuse records at least 70,779 times during the 2009 budget year, compared with 47,395 times during President George W. Bush’s final full budget year, according to annual FOIA reports filed by federal agencies. Obama was president for nine months in the 2009 period.

    Now that is CHANGE.

  91. Who’s the dumbass who wrote this Twitter question:

    “Open question 4 my tweeps: did any Israeli troops go to Afghanistan in our defense when we got hit on 9/11?”

    As if Israel would have even been permitted to do so.

    Israel gets asked by the US not to help out with anything related to combat in the Middle East.

    Can you imagine Israeli troops in an Islamic country?

    I sure hope that wasn’t Rutherford…..

  92. You want health care costs to drop like a rock? Revoke all insurance and you’ll find out how much of health care is completely unnecessary.

    HOLY CRAP Are you kidding me? You went to Med School dude? WTF?

    You eliminate insurance and people will not pay a dime for preventive care, illnesses will skyrocket and the end result will be huge spending on care of advanced illnesses AND people dying in the street because they can’t afford it.

    But I will say this … you have finally stated the ideal conservative solution. Eliminate health insurance altogether since why should anyone pool money to care for anybody else. If you can’t afford to be well, you oughta die and reduce the burden on society. 👿

  93. Rutherford you are so wrong on so many thing.

    SS and Medicare evolution is quite clear. They’ve evolved into entities that are broke. Well SS isn’t broke per se they’re getting ready to call in all those Clinton era surplus IOU’s. But since we’re broke I guess they’ll have to ask the Chinese.

    Tell me the state with some of if not the highest rising health insurance premiums…..
    Times up it’s the Bay State,you know the state with universal coverage/access. FAIL!!!!!!!!

    How credible is the CBO forecasts when the simple truth is we’re all going to pay for 10 years for 6 years worth of “service”. That math can’t play out folks.

    Get off the f@#$ing public option horse will ya! How is there not competition now? I also wish the government would STFU about competition given one of there other monopolies suck so bad=schools funded by taxpayers.

    Speaking of schools your opening analogy has been shot down by the One himself. Picking and supporting Arne Duncan for starters. Publicly backing the dumping of the staff of the failed HS in Central Falls RI.And although the crisis in Detroit is being played in some quarters as throwing more money down a hole Bobb’s plan is pretty dramatic,at least what I’ve seen so far.

  94. Tell us, Professor Rutherford, how have they not “evolved with changing economics”.

    Better yet BiW, show me any source saying that SS and Medicare came out of the shoot planning to go broke in 40 years. What I was saying admittedly without being precise, is that the programs were created not knowing how health care costs and changing life expectancies would effect expenditures. The demographics (number of old people) and economics (costs) changed without the proper adjustments to the programs.

  95. Rutherford Tex’s comment wasn’t without validity you unfortunately took it to the extreme imo.
    I’ve said it a ton of times that health care and health insurance need to be seen a different entities. People being connected to paying for care and being able to shop would help costs.
    I find your outrage lame at best. The same premise is a cornerstone of the Obama plan, the whole red pill blue pill thing.

  96. Actually the adjustments that were made were the ones that could be made. Short sighted populism in the 30-40’s and then the 60’s doesn’t give the bureaucrats and their lovers a pass.

  97. Actually in follow up I recentlywent on a New Deal reading spree. Health care costs were proportionately higher back then on a per capita spectrum thingie. SS passed but health care failed and did so in no small way due to the medical folks of the time.

  98. You eliminate insurance and people will not pay a dime for preventive care, illnesses will skyrocket and the end result will be huge spending on care of advanced illnesses AND people dying in the street because they can’t afford it.

    I forget who I am dealing with here. I used the example of eliminating all insurance to try and make example that you would find a large part of the cost unnecessary because there is no need to defray the cost. Everybody will maximum use of a product if there is no personal cost.

    I use as example treating “the flu” for which there is no treatment but bed rest and fluids. Again, for the third time this is the biggest problem with making insurance available to everyone like Obama would like – unless some of the burden is shifted to person, there is no control. How does your boy propose to do this?

    But I will say this … you have finally stated the ideal conservative solution. Eliminate health insurance altogether since why should anyone pool money to care for anybody else. If you can’t afford to be well, you oughta die and reduce the burden on society 👿

    If I could differentiate that “all libs and only libs” fall into the category of untreated, I don’t know. It would be work taking a stab. Proof of voting record required. 😈

  99. Shit. One more time.

    That should have said maximize their use

    This is what Turbo Tax does to me about this time of year.

  100. The demographics (number of old people) and economics (costs) changed without the proper adjustments to the programs.

    And now you come to the rub that stains ALL of them. Knowing for decades that the day when the cupboard would be bare was coming, taking the $ and replacing it with IOUs and continually putting the cost off on to my and my children. And you want to make it worse. How many times are you going to hit your thumb with the hammer before you figure it out?

    The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result.

  101. “What I was saying admittedly without being precise, is that the programs were created not knowing how health care costs and changing life expectancies would effect expenditures. The demographics (number of old people) and economics (costs) changed without the proper adjustments to the programs.”

    But the government has proven that they are now better at forcasting how expectancies effect expenditures?

  102. Page 1002 and following discusses several provisions that include future legislative action. As LOL rightly pointed out, they are mandating super majorities for any changes, knowing full well they’ll likely filibuster any future changes.

    Fuck you R, that’s dirty.

    I don’t have time right now, but you’re entire response in crap…

  103. G why am I not surprised that you whine about not getting answers and then get pissy when I answer virtually point by point?

    To you and LOL how much do you want to bet that the supermajority verbiage in the bill is boilerplate language that gets thrown in all the time? Most legislation does require 3/5 so where is the hypocrisy? The current Senate bill passed by 3/5 and will now be passed by the House. No hypocrisy at all.

  104. I predict if the moronic and evil Democratic majority “deem” this monstrosity as being discussed, , and Obama is dumb enough to sign on to this fraud, there will be hell to pay.

    And I believe it then becomes mandatory for all people who were against this sham to begin to perform acts of every form of civil disobedience necessary, including your state to disregard federal mandates, to have the country thrown into a state of chaos. I will do all I can to convince those in the medical community to lay down in protest and refuse service.

    When enough time has passed and enough pain felt, we should then take the necessary steps to impeach Obama…

  105. I have a suggestion (not original):

    Perhaps taxpayers should “deem” their taxes to be considered paid without actually sending a check this year?

    I think that is the first indication that we all get to play by the same rules.

  106. “And I believe it then becomes mandatory for all people who were against this sham to begin to perform acts of every form of civil disobedience necessary, -Tex”

    Up to now I have always played by the rules. I’m done, if this passes.

    Tipping point.

    I sound like the anarchist college kids I used to despise.

    Red rover, red rover let Rabbit right over!

    Fuck this country. 40% already don’t pay income taxes thanks to Obama and his predecessors. Will be 50% in a year or so.

    Ruin me, no big deal. Fuck with my kid, whole new ball game.

    The end is near. A decade or less and the dollar will be destroyed. God only knows what moves the government will make in response to that.

    This is America. The government can not make you get insurance.

    I will do my best to cheat this government in any way I can.

    I’m buried by the very same bank that stole from my child. And my own government served as the get away car.

    Outside of violence, consider the Rabbit apart of the new Confederacy sans racism. And when the violence comes to the Rabbit, which in the next decade I feel it might, consider me game for that too.

    I’m buried by the very same bank that stole from my child.

    Fuck it. Those anarchist kids’ music aint so bad!

    Rally around the family! With a pocket full of shells!

  107. Who’s the dumbass who wrote this Twitter question:

    Yes I’m the “dumbass”.

    Here’s the reason for the question. I see a unique relationship between the US and Israel. Our basic stance is unconditional support of Israel. If they are in trouble, we come to their defense. If they act in ways that some would consider inappropriate, we either defend them or ignore the behavior. We take heat from the Arab world for our unwavering defense. So, my question is what do we get in return? We are their ally but how are they OUR ally?

    No one answered my tweet, which can mean many things (bad time of day, no one wanted to touch it, people thought I was a “dumbass”).

    I asked the question honestly because I didn’t know to what extent Israel has supported us vs our always supporting them and 9/11 seemed like a good example of a time when we needed our allies to show their support.

  108. Speaking of schools your opening analogy has been shot down by the One himself.

    Alfie I totally disagree. Changing the staff of a failing school is fixing it. That is not the same as saying “schools don’t work so let’s just stop educating people”.

  109. I’ve said it a ton of times that health care and health insurance need to be seen a different entities.

    I find this incredibly funny in light of the fact that the right consistently moans about the government takeover of health care when what is being addressed is the payment system, NOT the delivery system.

  110. This is what Turbo Tax does to me about this time of year.

    Oh please don’t go there. I’m dreading running through that program this year. It’s gonna be baaaaaaaaad.

  111. I will do all I can to convince those in the medical community to lay down in protest and refuse service.

    Well thank f*ckin’ &diety that you never got the opportunity to take the Hippocratic oath. Let’s you off the hook to encourage doctors to let their patients die.

    If I didn’t know that most of you guys are full of Internet hot air, some of you would really scare the crap out of me.

  112. This is America. The government can not make you get insurance.

    Totally nuts or just on the way? Car insurance: mandatory (I don’t give a f*ck why, it’s mandatory), home insurance: mandatory. Please stop!

    I’m buried by the very same bank that stole from my child. And my own government served as the get away car.

    On this I totally agree with you. The more I read about the current banking situation the more disgusted I am. Matt Taibbi wrote a helluva article in Rolling Stone about this. Worth the read if you don’t mind your blood pressure going up. (One scam mentioned in the article, the banks borrow money from Fed at 0 interest and then buy bonds (i.e. lend money back to Fed) at 2% interest. Basically a friggin’ ATM machine.)

    Finally, I shit you not, every morning at 9:00am my iPhone plays the opening of “Bulls on Parade” by Rage Against the Machine. Kick-starts my work day! (Used to be “Welcome to the Jungle” by Guns & Roses.)

  113. OK I finally had a chance to savor Rabbit’s Sambo comment.

    It is so obvious that you are an educator that it is disgusting. I remember back in the day when you were faking the dock worker thing. I don’t know why I didn’t see through it back then but it’s lucky you outed yourself prior to today cos the Sambo speech would have sealed the deal.

    You have beautifully expressed the conservative perspective, particularly the emasculating the black male meme. And I have to tell you (and Tex, and THE OTHERS) that a part of me could buy this. Who knows, I will probably never find Jesus but I might just one day find some historical outrage at the failure of our government to combat poverty and inner city strife. I focus on good intentions perhaps to my detriment.

    The one place where you did lose me was on facilitating college enrollment. What is the alternative in a society that increasingly needs educated people?

    Oh and Rabbit my brother, don’t forget that, according to Pat Robertson, François-Dominique Toussaint Louverture caused the recent earthquake in Haiti. Maybe we should hold back our praise for that uppity Negro?

  114. Here’s the reason for the question. I see a unique relationship between the US and Israel. Our basic stance is unconditional support of Israel. If they are in trouble, we come to their defense. If they act in ways that some would consider inappropriate, we either defend them or ignore the behavior. We take heat from the Arab world for our unwavering defense. So, my question is what do we get in return? We are their ally but how are they OUR ally?

    Sharing of intelligence is one HUGE way, R. The Mossad are some of the best in the world, and they have humint assets that we can’t even dream of having.

    Another is the fact that they are a democracy in a part of the world where that is rare. It’s good for the other peoples (not nations) of the region to have an example they can point to.

    And then there is the fact that they have restrained themselves when we have asked them to, which has kept them from going medeveal on some neighboring nations when they have chosen to act like asshats. In so doing, they have prevented the entire region from being drawn into a conflagration, and spared the arab powers from further humiliation at the hands of such a tiny and inferior neighbor.

  115. “r”,

    that you never got the opportunity to take the Hippocratic oath. Let’s you off the hook to encourage doctors to let their patients die.

    Hell yes!!! Anybody that voted for Obama deserves death! And all the doctors will dance to Sympathy for the Devil over their broken bodies while picking their pockets. Payback for lack of reimbursement 😈

  116. Totally nuts or just on the way? Car insurance: mandatory (I don’t give a f*ck why, it’s mandatory), home insurance: mandatory. Please stop!

    Rutherford, you’re an idiot.

    The government does not make you purchase homeowners’ insurance. Your bank might, but the government does not.

    And the government doesn’t make you buy car insurance because not everyone owns a car.

    Besides, people don’t expect their homeowners insurance to pay for housepainting, adding on a deck, or other basic maintenance issues, and they don’t expect their car insurance to pay for new brakes and tires, or oil changes or tune ups.

    Yet you stil persist in the silly and dismissable belief that these things are all equatable. They aren’t, and only a fool would say that.

  117. “When you end up in the ER because you are uninsured, you are costing everyone else money. HCR, in principle makes health care more affordable for everyone.” – R

    Supply and demand. There is going to be no change in the rate of supply- it’s already maxed out- but the demand is going to sky rocket, that will drive up prices. IF you mandate that prices must be fixed, then quality has to decline to contend with the quantity. Listen, at this point, we’re dealing with the Laws of Nature. These are simple, yet extremely powerful, forces that you cannot ignore. Look at Massachussetts, the closest to universal healthcare in the country, it also has the highest premiums in the country- imagine that…

    “More BS which you’d know if you’d paid attention to the Summit. Premium prices will go down. What the CBO said is that because folks will suddenly be able to afford better policies there is the potential for overall premium increases. In other words, you have a Pinto, the cost of the Pinto drops, you say hey, I think I’ll go for the SUV (which also has dropped in price) which is now only slightly more expensive than my Pinto used to be and affords me better coverage. This was the Obama/Alexander dispute at the beginning of the Summit which Alexander LOST.” – R

    Read it dumbass. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10781/11-30-Premiums.pdf

    And before you come back with, “well this isn’t the new version”, you’re right, its not because no one has seen it yet, to include the CBO or the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

    Can you explain why we can’t expect the same?
    Massachusetts Faces Costs of Big Health Care Plan
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/health/policy/16mass.html
    Mass. healthcare reform is failing us
    http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/02/mass_healthcare_reform_is_failing_us/
    Bay State health insurance premiums highest in country
    http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2009/08/22/bay_state_health_insurance_premiums_highest_in_country/

    “According to the CBO or the GBO (Gorilla Budgeting Office)?” – R

    Fine then, you explain the math to us all for the first ten years and then for the second. The plan is barely deficit neutral (not really) by not going into effect until 2014, but we’ll start paying taxes towards it next year. Six years of expenses versus 10 years of income= barely deficit neutral. OK, so what happens the next ten years when we have ten years of expenses and ten years of income? Come on genius, tell us…

    “Totally nuts or just on the way? Car insurance: mandatory (I don’t give a f*ck why, it’s mandatory), home insurance: mandatory. Please stop!” – R

    ONLY IF YOU OWN A CAR AND DRIVE IT. Car insurance is not for you, it is for the poor sap you hit while tweeting. Health insurance is FOR YOU, no one else, and you are talking about MANDATING a product for every man, women or child- FROM BIRTH.

    As BiW already pointed out, the government does not mandate home owners, your mortgage company does. Why? Because until you pay it off, it ain’t your God Damn house and they have a right to protect their PROPERTY.

    If Rolling Stone is where you get you’re info, then no wonder you’re fucked up in the head.

    And now for the real kicker- Pelosi and Slaughter both supported amicus briefs to the Supreme Court in 1998 for Clinton v. New York City stating that legislation could only be passed through bicameral procedures as stated by the Constitution- that’s a vote jackass. Yet, these two bastions of Botox are now looking to completely bypass the Constitutional procedure for passing law because they can’t get the votes.

    Huh? How can that be? There are 257 Dems in the House, how could they not get the 216 votes required to pass the bill? Must be the Republicans fault for holding out!!! Wait a minute, could it be that the bill sucks so bad that at least 40 Dems are saying, ‘not no, but hell no.’

    You can’t even pass it through your party, but you want us to swallow?

    Come here R, I got something you can swallow…

  118. If Rolling Stone is where you get you’re info, then no wonder you’re fucked up in the head.

    😆 😆

    When I read that, I couldn’t help but wonder about my pal Rutherford. But at least it is now understandable why he is always a tad confused.

    Here’s a man that questions blog guests for forming opinions from reading the Bible, but he himself gains great wisdom from reading Rolling Stone magazine, and will use it as source of the wisdom. 🙂

    If we weren’t talking such important issues, one couldn’t help but laugh as the absurdity of the whole progressive mindset.

  119. If Rolling Stone is where you get you’re info, then no wonder you’re fucked up in the head.

    I don’t know why you dilute your argument with stupid statements like that one. Rolling Stone happens to have some of the best national affairs articles going. The one I cited earlier written by Matt Taibbi, which you didn’t bother to read before condemning it, was not partisan. If anything it was critical of the Obama administration for allowing the banking shenanigans to go on completely unchecked.

    But you see, this is exactly why you and yours can never hope to be the least bit enlightened. When you limit your reading to HotAir.com and World Net Daily you get the ignorance you deserve. 👿

  120. Time for some Deem and Pass education … I’m not being condescending here … I didn’t completely understand it and now that I have a better grasp, it’s here for your perusal if you choose to talk intelligently instead of out of your ass.

    1. Deem and Pass is hardly unprecedented having been used by both parties at one time or another. The first known instance was in 1933.

    2. The reason in 1933 as now was that the House needed to make a tough vote and Deem and Pass allowed them to make the vote without appearing to really have made the vote.

    Let’s hit the current situation. The House doesn’t like all the compromises in the Senate bill and there are a number of Representatives who would vote the Senate bill down but vote for the reconciled bill which corrects the compromises (i.e. side deals like Cornhusker Kickback). So, a rule on voting for the reconciled bill is put forth and voted by the entire House. The rule deems the Senate bill (pre-reconciliation) passed for the purposes of voting on the reconciled bill.

    Any Representative who does not like the Senate bill and thinks their vote for the “rule” would be viewed as voting for the Senate bill, will vote the rule down.

    The hope is that Representatives can hide behind the rule by telling their constituents “I didn’t vote for the Senate bill, I only voted for the rule.” It’s a stupid distinction that with all the current publicity can’t work.

    Bottom line, the idea that the health care bill will become law without a vote is poppycock. The rule must be voted on, it isn’t just declared. So by voting on the rule, they indirectly vote on the Senate bill.

    And yes, Pelosi and Slaughter are using a method they opposed years ago. So friggin’ what? The party in power does what it can to get what it wants and the party out of power does what it can to oppose what it doesn’t want. It’s called politics.

    Here are my sources:
    http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010031116/deem-and-pass-not-without-vote

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/16/health-care-opponents-dem_n_501353.html

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/16/house-has-long-history-of_n_500623.html

  121. Our Future.org are communists! Yeah I’m getting a little McCarthy-ish but their explanation offered up against what they call conservative rhetoric is total leftist spin.
    The HuffPo long history thing seems to leave out the gravity of the procedure and the potential use today.
    This is too big not to have everyones fingerprints on it so we can cut those f#@$ing hands off in November.
    Your acceptance of this being used for this big a thing is disgusting.

  122. Rolling Stone is one of the most bias rags out their. They were so hard for Obama that they should have probably been reported to the FEC, so no, I don’t have to respect them.

    R, the only reason they are using this because they can’t get Dems to vote for the damn thing. You don’t have the vote, the Constitution requires a vote on the bill, so how is this even legit?

  123. So what does that say about the fucking bill?

    Jesus Christ, what the fuck goes on in your head? How can you back this thing when it clearly sucks this bad?

    The American people don’t want it. I could again point to ALL the polls against this, but by far, the best metric is likely the fact that Dems- who love this thing in the closet- dare not support it for fear of their constituents.

    At what point does the premise of Representative Democracy come into play?

    I should love this, in the sense that Obama is destroying the Dems, and if it wasn’t for the fact that this thing is so damn dangerous, I’d smile more about this. Forget partisan party identification, how many election cycles do you think it’ll be before independents ever trust you again? I’ll bet you hide from that little tidbit of data in the polls- polling data of independents right now is nearly identical to that of Republicans.

    You’re screwed whether you pass this or not and the only person you can thank for that is Barak Hussein Obama, hmmm, hmmm, hmmm…

What's on your mind?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s