It turns out John Boehner and the republicans were right all along. The “sit and let the dems hang themselves” technique worked beautifully.
Boehner and the conservatives have sat on their collective hands and watched as the reality and cost of ObamaCare came out and killed the plan before it could ever get started.
The ObamaCare website fiasco just helped to drive home the idea that if the government can’t run a website right, what makes you think they can handle health care?
Overall, only about one-fifth of the people the White House expected to sign up for insurance in the first month actually did so: 106,185 against a forecast of 500,000. That’s just slightly less than a capacity crowd at Penn State’s Beaver Stadium. And of those who signed up, only 26,794 did so on the federally run exchanges in 36 states. The rest enrolled on state-run exchanges.
The White House was pre-spinning the numbers weeks ago, as soon as it was clear that the website, which it had three-and-a-half years to make ready, was dysfunctional.
The unrelenting disaster of the Obamacare rollout has invigorated Republicans in Congress. Suddenly, their years of warnings about the law’s terrible effects seem vindicated; GOP lawmakers and commentators have turned into crusaders for the system’s victims who are seeing their insurance policies canceled, having their premiums hiked, or just can’t get through that darned healthcare.gov website.
Meanwhile, Obama going out in the media presser and claiming that he “fumbled” with the rollout of ObamaCare seems to have only made things worse for fellow democrats, who have been busy distancing themselves form the toxic policy.
Obama’s ego may very well be the problem here. Obama seems to bent on making sure his legacy stays in tact with a seemingly complete disregard for the future of the democrat party.
Most democrats now see that the very future of the party itself is at stake here. Our prediction is that the party will suffer a horrible defeat next November, taking out their maority in the senate and paving the way for a complete repeal of ObamaCare for the republicans. One can only hope. JD
Its sounds like a stretch right? Parents responsible for Obama victory in 2012? Well lets see if I can make this a bit easier to understand.
One of the common themes I kept hearing from Obama supporters coming into the election was how “unfair” life has been to them and how they felt that some people had an unfair advantage over others in our society.
Most of the people that I encountered that were repeating this democrat talking point were younger than thirty years of age.
When asked why these people perceived things as so unfair, the answer was incredibly selfish in nature.
One of the first things most complained about was the wealthy. They said it wasn’t fair that these people had become so wealthy and had life so easy, yet contributed to little to American society.
I would point out that most of the celebrities they worshiped were incredibly wealthy themselves.
This argument was almost immediately dismissed because celebrities do so much charitable work. When I told them that musical acts and movie stars did this work for tax write offs, none would believe me.
After most of these conversations, I found myself wondering how we ever got to this point where our young adults seem to feel as if life had been unfair to them.
I brought this up in a discussion with some like minded friends and oddly enough, it was one of my more liberal friends that gave me the answer.
Dave the friend said “I blame the parents.” Now that had been a passing thought of mine from time to time, but I dismissed it because I too am a parent.
Dave went on to tell us all of his years of coaching both soccer and baseball and the parents of the children insisting that it was only fair (there is that word again) that their child, who had no talent for the game and no ability whatsoever got to play in the games too.
Dave explained that these kids didn’t play well because the only coaching they received was at an actual practice, and that the parents were too self absorbed in the foibles and drama of their own lives to actually spend any time practicing with their children.
Dave told stories of parents sitting at their kids games yammering away on their cell phones to friends, completely oblivious to the game with the exception of when they would finally notice that their little Bobby or Betty had not been out on the field, then all hell would break loose, because it wasn’t fair that their child didn’t get to play.
The discussion then turned to the word “fair” and why we instilled this belief into our children in the first place. After all life isn’t fair.
Dave went on to say that in many instances it was hard to tell who was the parent and who was the child, because the kids are telling their parents how things are going to be. Amazing.
We are all born with a survival instinct that dictates our behavior. If left to our own devices in a place without modern conveniences, we would hunt, gather wood and do whatever else necessary to survive.
But in America today, our kids are starving if there are no Frosted Flakes in the house, even though there is bread, milk, eggs and everything else to make a good breakfast.
If our kids don’t have the latest and greatest video games, their lives are seemingly over. If they don’t have an I-Phone 5, well lets just say that as parents we are not upholding our end of the deal of completely overindulging out children.
This has been going on for generations now. Kids who have been pre-programmed by their own parents to believe that everything in life should be fair and equitable, and that they simply deserve everything they want just because they are our children or because little Bobby and Betty have them, or because Bobby gets to stay out until 1 am so its only fair that I can stay out too . . . The list goes on and on.
Now these selfish little monsters that we have created are old enough to vote, and that’s exactly what they did. And in the ultimate act of selfishness, they voted for Obama.
After all it was Obama and the democrats that were telling us all that it wasn’t fair that the rich were not paying their “fair” (there is that word again) share of taxes to benefit the poor and starving college students and XBOX players of the nation.
We parents sit and read the news of How Obama won the election when we are part of the very reason he won the election, because its the selfishness that we have raised our children with that has created this mess in the first place. JD
Jon Lovitz, an early “Saturday Night Live” cast member, had some harsh words for President Barack Obama over the weekend.
In an interview with “Clerks” director Kevin Smith, Lovitz, a registered Democrat who voted for Obama in 2008, bashed the president for his class warfare rhetoric and the notion that the wealthy don’t pay their fair share in taxes.
“This whole thing with Obama saying the rich don’t pay their taxes is fucking bullshit, and I voted for the guy and I’m a Democrat. What a fucking asshole,” Lovitz said.
“First they say … ‘You can do anything you want. Go for it.’ So then you go for it, and then you make it, and everyone’s like, ‘Fuck you,’” Lovitz said. “[Obama] is the perfect example. He’s amazing. He had nothing … and the guy ends up being at Harvard. He’s the president of the United States. And now he’s like, ‘Fuck me and everybody who made it like me.’”
The interview was part of a series on Lovitz’s podcast called “The ABC’s of SNL” where the comedian tells behind-the-scenes stories of his time at Studio 8H, where he was a regular from 1985 to 1990.
Lovitz also criticized Smith for “masquerading as a 99 percenter” — a reference to the Occupy Wall Street movement that the director said he supports.
Later on in the podcast when Lovitz’s diatribe against Obama really started to heat up, Smith suggested that the government would come and shut down the podcast.
I guess the national media doesn’t get it. The “Tea Party” movement isn’t about republicrat and democan, its about removing these scumbag incumbents from office.
We have a system whereas the people that retain office for long periods of time become corrupt. The easiest way to defeat the system, or remove the cancer, is to to remove the cancer from the body completely. In this case the body in question is the body politic, and the tumor has been diagnosed as malignant.
So be they democrat or republican, they will be removed until the malignancy is gone from the body completely.
There are as many bad republicans as there are democrats. You can search the archives of this site and see where we have been saying this for years. We are all getting screwed by both sides of the isle.
Perhaps it took electing a “community organizer” that is unqualified and unfit to govern to show Americans the way to the end of this nightmare we find ourselves in today.
I don’t know when it will end. I was hoping that Ross Perot was here to show us the way, but he turned out to not really want the job, and the rest as they say is history.
But there are several things that need to be pointed out here. The fact the people are willing to vote with an almost reckless abandon for anyone that come along . . . even a lot of no name newcomers should tell the national media something. The people are tired of being sold a bill of goods by the media.
An example of the media calling the shots would be health care reform. This idea was roundly rejected in polls, but the national media was right there to back Obama and Pelosi.
All of the research showed this. Americans are not willing to foot the bill for the lazy and inept.
Obama and Pelosi would have none of this. They pressed ahead, disregarding and more importantly DISRESPECTING the will of the people. You shit heals in the media can spin this anyway you want, but this is exactly what will cause Obama’s undoing. Its what will make him the next Jimmy Carter.
The level of arrogance from the left. The morons in Washington thought that the fact that America elected a black man gave them carte blanche to do whatever they wanted in Washington.
Wrong. The people that call themselves “politicians” are really the people that are crippling America.
Look at where we are today as compared to twenty, even ten years ago. Politicians from both sides of the isle, have squandered American wealth in an attempt to quell a floundering economy. Both democrats and republicans have been on a spending spree with little or no regard to the ramifications to their actions.
Media ridicule of the tea party. Lets not forget that the media treated the tea party members as ” Racists and bigots” at all of the town hall meetings. This behavior by the media continues today.
The national media attacked the tea party members and portrayed them as absconders, almost criminals that were acting in a covert manner to undermine the Obama administration.
Make no mistake. This was being orchestrated from the White House. If you cannot stand the message, you kill the messenger. This is an old favorite for both parties. This too shall come to pass.
In conclusion, I am pissed. People are pissed. A very small percentage of people are seeing the light. They see that both sides of the isle are boning them and not using any lube.
When the dust settles, and the incumbents fall by the wayside, keep in mind what drove us to this point. LIBERAL DEMOCRATS and the MEDIA.
I have been saying for years to shuffle the deck. This means exactly what it says. Screw party. Screw ideology. Vote for whoever is fresh blood. JD
The Senate filibuster has emerged as the bane of President Obama’s legislative agenda, igniting anger among liberals over a tactic that is now hogtying Congress even on noncontroversial bills.
The threat of filibusters has become so common that congressional leaders take it for granted that any bill of consequence will not pass the 100-member Senate with a simple majority of 51. Instead, 60 votes — the number needed to cut off the interminable speeches of a filibuster — has become the minimum required.
Frustration has intensified since Senate Republicans’ no-holds-barred effort to block the healthcare bill. GOP use of the tactic forced Democrats to scrounge for 60 votes at every legislative turn to prevent filibusters.
Now, facing the prospect of losing seats in this fall’s midterm elections, some Democrats are seeking to change the rules.
While Democrats have large majorities in the House and Senate, the 60-vote threshold for action in the Senate has become a powerful curb on the scope of the Obama agenda. To prevail over united Republicans, all 58 Democrats, including a small but influential faction of conservatives, have to stick together, along with the Senate’s two independents.
The Democrats’ vulnerability could be even greater given the announcements of Sens. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) and Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) that they will not run for reelection this year.
The demands of hitting that 60-vote bar have dashed liberal hopes of including in the healthcare bill a new government insurance option to compete with private companies. Earlier last year, filibuster threats from Republicans and conservative Democrats in effect forced Obama to accept a smaller economic stimulus bill than many Democrats wanted. Obama’s Senate allies have been hard-pressed to round up 60 votes for a major initiative to address global warming.
It is the Senate’s own rules, not the Constitution, that set 60 votes as the benchmark for cutting off debate. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), chairman of the Senate health committee, argues that current rules have made it too hard for Democrats to exercise the mandate they received from the voters in 2008.
“Elections should have consequences,” Harkin said in a recent letter to his colleagues urging a change in filibuster rules. “Even when a party loses, it too easily can prevent the majority elected to govern from legislating.”
Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) has launched a petition drive urging Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to push for cutting from 60 to 55 the number of votes needed to cut off a filibuster.
“Why should launching wars and cutting taxes for the rich require only 50 votes, while saving lives requires 60?” asked Grayson, who cited a number of major bills that were passed by the Senate with less than 60 votes while President George W. Bush was in office.
Democrats have used the filibuster against Republicans when the GOP was in the majority, most recently from 2001 to 2006. Back then, Democrats were great defenders of the right to filibuster Bush’s judicial nominations. At one point in 2003, Reid spent more than eight hours on the Senate floor protesting the fact that Republicans spent so much time on four disputed judges instead of on joblessness. Reid read six chapters from a book he’d written about his tiny hometown of Searchlight, Nev.
Today, Reid is the Senate majority leader and complains bitterly about GOP delaying tactics.
To make it easier to end a filibuster, Harkin has proposed gradually reducing the number of votes needed to cut off debate — from 60 votes on the first attempt, to 57 votes if another vote is held two days later, and eventually to 51 votes if the debate drags on long enough.
“Under this proposal, a determined minority could slow any bill down,” Harkin said in his recent letter to colleagues. “A minority of members, however, could not stymie the majority by grinding the Senate to a halt, as sadly too regularly happens today.”
But few senators show much inclination to tamper with a tool that gives enormous leverage to either party when it finds itself in the minority.
“It’s a real obstacle to getting much done, but it’s ingrained into the Senate,” said the Senate’s historian, Donald A. Ritchie. “It’s the institution the senators enacted themselves. They do have the power to change it.”
Some senators’ refusal to even consider changes infuriates Democrats in the House, where a simple majority prevails and debate is strictly limited. Frustrated liberals say that Senate rules are a relic of another era that hobbles Congress’ ability to address the nation’s problems.
The filibuster is rooted in the Senate’s tradition of allowing unlimited debate, which is intended to produce a more considered judgment on policy than in the House. The Senate did not allow for any debate limits until 1917, when a filibuster blocked legislation to allow merchant ships to be armed against German submarine attacks during World War I. Infuriated, President Wilson called the Senate back into session to pass the bill and adopt new procedures for cutting off filibusters.
The rule called for closing debate — or invoking cloture — by a vote of two-thirds of the senators present. That threshold was lowered to 60 votes in 1975 and remains today. That is why, in practice, a minority of 40 senators can keep legislation from coming to a vote.
The most renowned use of the filibuster was by Southern senators who blocked civil rights legislation for decades. That ended in 1964, when the Senate cut off a record 87-day filibuster against the Civil Rights Act, a turning point in the nation’s long struggle over outlawing racial discrimination. It marked the first time the Senate had been able to cut off the filibuster of a civil rights bill.
The storied filibusters of the 20th century were the all-night talkathons of legend, with senators reading recipes and the Constitution to hold the floor, and using urine bags so they did not have to take bathroom breaks. That image was cemented by Jimmy Stewart’s performance in the film “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” in which he played a political rookie who filibustered against corrupt legislation until he collapsed.
Now, as House and Senate leaders are working with the White House to resolve differences between their two versions of the healthcare bill, the number 60 looms large over the talks.
To circumvent further delaying tactics, Democrats have decided not to name an official House-Senate conference committee to reconcile the bills’ differences — because naming those conferees is just one more thing that Republicans could filibuster.
Instead, leaders of the two chambers will negotiate informally, then bring the compromise straight to the House and Senate floors.