५ नोव्हेंबर, २००९
"I can tell you right now, if we don't pass this bill, I don't care who you are; if you have a D behind your name and this bill has not been passed, you are in tremendous peril next year."
House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn sounds the alarm, but perhaps not the alarm he thinks he's sounding. It focuses the minds in the House, but does it incline them to vote for the bill or against it?
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४९ टिप्पण्या:
If you have a D behind your name then you are imperiling this country. The proof is self-evident.
“Whip” always seemed like a dated and arguably racist metaphor.
Maybe they should give “House Majority Cattle Prod” a try and see how it goes.
They may be in far more peril if they screw up health care for 80% of Americans who are satisfied with their current plans.
Worse than terrorism.
They're only in peril if the Republican Party fields strong candidates, which has been a problem for Republicans in the past few election cycles.
It's dangerous for the Democrats to base their future on assumptions of continued ineptitude from their opponents, however. I think the Republicans were doing that ca. 2001/2002, and look where it got them.
That's why they call him the whip. Getting your fellow party members to vote the leadership's way is what it's all about.
The old war horses can feel it slipping away....
They're only in peril if the Republican Party fields strong candidates
The GOP leadership is dominated by abominable no-men* like Boehner, and non-politicians like Limbaugh.
*Phrase invented by the immortal C. Northcote Parkinson
That's why they call him the whip. Getting your fellow party members to vote the leadership's way is what it's all about.
Instead of voting for what your constituents (big word for those people who you are supposed to be representing) want you to do.
The people in your district say NO and you say screw you I'm doing what the Party Whip wants me to do. Don't be surprised when you are out of a job when the people who hired you, can your ass and vote for someone else.
Nature abhors a vacuum.
However, it seems to love a mop, as evidenced by the Man-child President who appeared by accident when the Republican candidate self-immolated.
Spoken like a true whip whose job it is to round up votes--unfortunately, the honorable members attention is focused on their own reelection in their home districts and they can read the returns better than the speaker who fatuously proclaimed we won last nite.
Its all about reelection whatever the initial behind your name.
Yes, Clyburn's just doing his job, but no one will take his warning seriously. The House Dems are more than capable of figuring out which position on healthcare will put in tremendous peril in their district next year.
He's madly projecting.
He already knows Democrats are doomed no matter what they do.
I don't care who you are, if you have a D by your name (or if you vote with them and have an R by your name) you're political career is dead next year.
And you'll be lucky if that's the extent of it.
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." Alexis de Tocqueville 1805–1859
"... when the Republican candidate self-immolated."
So true.
I was a Democrat - until I got my first paycheck and looked at the deductions.
Since then, been a lifelong Republican.
John McCain violated the First Amendment with the McCain-Feingold act. He compounded that with the John McCain Illegal Alien Amnesty Act.
Fuck him. He revealed himself to be a Democrat.
I stopped donating and refused to vote.
I helped to purposely ensure we'd get the worst of the two Democrats in the race to teach America a lesson.
If they pass the bill they are also in tremendous peril.
Why?
Because they are focused on the wrong issues.
It's the economy, stupid. And education. How about more focus on education than a Madison photo op where you blame everything on Bush.
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." Alexis de Tocqueville 1805–1859
Isn't that the truth?
I was talking to my Dad last night and he said that a local bond issue failed for the second time back home. That NEVER happens. People always vote for bond issues, particularly when it involves property tax *on someone else*. Are people figuring out where the money comes from and that people really don't *have* any? Or did they wake up to the fact that, even if they don't really see where the money comes from that everyone is broke, and it has to come from somewhere?
Really, this is not in a community that isn't Historically into magic government money.
In the next town over the council is facing recall, or at least a whole lot of extremely upset people because they decided to skip the referendum step of the process and just authorize a few million dollars for a new hockey rink. In a town of about 12K people. How much is that per person figuring that of that population a whole lot are children, elderly, or on welfare already?
What does it say that he feels the need to make such an argument?
Republicans should not be the Party of No.
They should be the Party of Hell No!
If it goes down, as it should, the greatest effect will be for the country and economy to give a sigh of relief, knowing that they dodged a bullet.
Those who voted for it will still be targeted and greatly at risk in competitive districts in order to prevent them from trying to destroy the economy and healthcare system again (and they will try again and again and again). But they will be targeted and greatly at risk whether it fails or whether it passes.
My favorite Democrat spin from yesterday: David Axeelrod, who,on several news shows made the case that the election Tuesday had nothing to do with Obama because "Obama wasn't on the ballot".
Oh really?
1) Is that the impression you meant to leave with these ADS?
2) Then stop running against George W Bush - he's not on the ballots anywhere.
"They should be the Party of Hell No!"
Yes.
;-)
He has a cold blooded argument. If the Health Care Destruction Bill is still pending, then next year all of you criminals will be thrown into the "Unemployed" along with everybody else no on the Government Teat. But if we can sneak this thru now, the as a fait accomplis the serfs will have to bow in surrender so that they will not lose favor with their local Demonrat Comissars, I mean Congress Persons.
This makes no sense. If not voting for this bill will make Dems unpopular, why won't it make Republicans unpopluar to? Contrast this with a legitimately popular act the Patriot Act. The public wanted the Patriot Act and as a result it passed by huge margins and both Dems and Republicans fell over themselves to vote for it.
If Obamacare were popular, Republicans would be voting for it to. It is not popular, so Republicans can oppose it with zero political risk. The Dems have written a cockeyed unpopular bill that does nothing but play to the dellusions of their derranged base and pay off their political chronies. As a result, they face the choice of either voting for the bill and getting killed for passing such a monstrosity or killing it and having their base become even more derranged. couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.
Flexo said...
Republicans should not be the Party of No.
They should be the Party of Hell No!
Precisely!!
Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman may be safe, but any Demo (or RINO, for that matter) who doesn't think this bill is unpopular with his constituents better start scanning the want ads.
Supposedly, not passing this is the end of the Obamanation (from my lips to God's ears). Willie survived HillaryHealth (sad to say), but then Dick Morris was POTUS from '95 to '99. I don't think Astroturf can do the same for The Zero.
WV "aplappe" The sound a large-busted woman makes jumping rope while topless. Often followed by, "Oooohh".
“Whip” always seemed like a dated and arguably racist metaphor.
Ah yes, the racial lexicon once again rears its head. Because nobody before blacks in the south were every whipped...ever.
My brother's wife is foreign-born-and-raised. She's constantly bemused by the way we tie ourselves in knots necessarily over things like this.
WV - "equist" one who believes in the supremacy of horses over other species.
Oh, I'm so sick of this. Pass it already, Dems. Just do it.
We'll kick your asses next year and for another decade, at least. Morons. And by "we" I mean the American public, not just Republicans.
Pass it.
From the article: Rep. Robert Andrews (D-N.J.) admits his lasting regret for having backed away from supporting President Bill Clinton’s economic program in the 1990s.
You meant that economic program of deficit reduction, free trade, and the Internet bubble?
This is not about doing the right or wrong thing, it's about looking good in hindsight.
Ha! Go ahead Democrats. Put on your foresight glasses and peer into that future where you look good now. Thumbsuckers.
Rep. Andrews is the guy who resigned his House seat to challenge Lautenverg in the primary. Andrews promised, if he lost the Senate primary, he would not take the House seat back. The Dem party picked Andrews' wife to run for his House seat (how convenient!).
After he lost the Senate primary, Andrews quickly went back on his promise and ran again for his old House seat. So he is just the average lying scumbag Congress critter IMO.
Chase: My favorite Democrat spin from yesterday: David Axeelrod, who, on several news shows made the case that the election Tuesday had nothing to do with Obama because "Obama wasn't on the ballot".
3) Obama won't be on the ballot next year either.
MM said: "They're only in peril if the Republican Party fields strong candidates"
Not true, weak candidates win all the time, when the environment is bad for the party they are running against.
Many weak Dem candidates were swept into office in the Dem waves of 2006 and 2008. If there is a GOP wave in 2010, then the same will happen in reverse.
The Tactical Plan of the DemonRats is simple: destroy everthing we have by Nationalised Health care and an energy tax to destroy all manufacturing left here, and then offer to be our savior from the sudden crisis that results from their deeds. You cannot blame these well meaning Congress personalities who do these dirty deeds because "No one knew that would happen". Yes, the do know and they have been planning to do it for 15 + years. There is no place for these traitors to hide now. Someone call Sarah Palin who can see this stuation clearly and fight back, unlike Newt Gingrich, John Mccain and friends advise us to compromise with it.
At some point the Democrats are going to need to shit or get off the proverbial pot on this issue. This administration is going on one year in office and with an overwhelming Democrat control of Congress this legislation should be a foregone conclusion yet, I’m listening to the Senate Majority leader telling the public that there are no timetables and it may be debated even next year.
A societal changing piece of legislation getting passed in an election year. Good luck that.
I hope President Obama takes note of what is a basic human attribute and that is, despite his catchy campaign slogans, people don’t like change, particularly large, monumental changes which tend to affect them personally. If you have held a job in your life other than hearing ‘You’re fired’ the second worst thing to come out of the boss’ mouth is ‘There are going to be some changes around here.’ Incremental changes work much better and are more easily accepted by the public. Evidently President Obama was caught up in the ‘irrational exuberance’ of his election and misinterpreted the Bush discontent with a mandate to turn 10%-15% of the US economy into another Federal program.
As the saying goes, we live in interesting times. President Obama has some pretty ambitious things on his agenda, Cap and Trade and Financial Regulatory Reform, both of which have the capacity to be as game changing as Health Care Reform. It doesn’t take a political genius to see that if Health Care Reform fails or is significantly delayed, he is going to have real problems in the remainder of his term and with his party having a lock on Congress, that’s a pretty sad commentary on his leadership.
I have some serious questions for supporters of this Health Care "Reform". Please answer them?
Why do you think Congress has exempted themselves from this "Reform"? Are you so blind that you don't get what that means?
Really. I want to know.
It's such a great plan. You first, Congress. G'head. You test it out for us and show us how wonderfully it works. That would be a great experiment.
I haven’t read the whole bill, but I assume pre-natal care is not included. Pre-natal care is, after all, care for the fetus, not the mother. Having been through it four times now, the concern for the mother is there, but all of emphasis is on the health of baby. If the reform bill is supposed to address a basic, fundamental right of the citizenry of this country, I don’t see how the pro-choice democrats could possibly include pre-natal care.
That would imply that the unborn have a fundamental right to health care.
That would imply that the unborn have more fundamental rights…like the one to not be killed on the whim of the mother.
If you disagree with this, please tell me the exact starting point a citizen of this country can begin to claim their fundamental rights.
That would imply that the unborn have a fundamental right to health care.
Under the various employer insurance schemes I have had, pre-natal care has been covered while children cannot be enrolled till they are born. So that seeming paradox should not exist.
I think hell just froze over. I agree with FLS.
They're only in peril if the Republican Party fields strong candidates, which has been a problem for Republicans in the past few election cycles.
The problem for the Democrats there is that a lot of strong Republicans looked at the 1993 N.J. and Va. election results and decided to run for seats held by Democrats in 1994. And won. Only this time, the swing in those two states is even greater between 2008 and 2009 than between 1992 and 1993.
Pretty much everything I see the Democrats saying now points to the fact they think they are going to get pasted in 2010. (A new President's party typically loses fifteen to twenty seats in the mid-term election following inauguration).
They are signalling that they are going to use the most vulnerable members (first termers from otherwise Republican districts) as cannon fodder to get Obamacare passed with the hope that the losses don't reach into the second-tier of Democrats from otherwise safe districts.
They are signaling that they are going to use the most vulnerable members (first termers from otherwise Republican districts) as cannon fodder to get Obamacare passed with the hope that the losses don't reach into the second-tier of Democrats from otherwise safe districts.
That is why I find Clyburn's quote interesting. They are threatening the new and the moderate Democrats, but with what? Likely support in the next election cycle.
But I don't really believe them, since if these moderate and new Democrats in the House don't vote for ObamaCare, they still vote for Pelosi to be Speaker, etc. And, when push goes to shove, I don't see the Democrats cutting off very many of their wayward Representatives when it comes to the next election. I just don't see Speaker Pelosi being that eager to give up her private Air Force jets, huge office, and power.
I have been saying for a long time, and Pelosi has recently backed me, that she and her leadership are more than willing to sacrifice the seats of all those Democrats sitting in seats that were Republican four years ago, or are in districts that voted for Bush in 2004 or McCain in 2008 to pass ObamaCare.
But, why should the Democrats, whose seats are being sacrificed here, go along?
There was a reason why Bush got his agenda through congress with the slimmest of majorities, he was up against that bird brain Pelosi most of the time.
I wonder if Rahm will be satisfied to watch Pelosi piss away the majority he created with red state democrats?
... and sometimes the bear eats you.
Under the various employer insurance schemes I have had, pre-natal care has been covered while children cannot be enrolled till they are born. So that seeming paradox should not exist.
That's because prenatal care is generally for the benefit of the mother and not the unborn child. Things like gestational diabetes, preeclampsia (sp?), nutrition and other things.
The complaint that I have against the proposals is that Obama and the Dems want to have a one size fits all insurance program.
I'm sorry.....but why should I be forced to pay premiums for things that I don't need or will ever use like: pregnancy, alchohol abuse, mental counseling, accupuncture, drug coverage etc.
Why should I be forced to buy a policy with a low deductibe that costs more, when I can benefit more by a high deductible that I pay out of pocket or even a Health Savings Account compatable plan?
Instead of allowing people to choose the plan that best suits their own needs and lifestyle, the Dems want to shove us all into an expensive program that makes us pay for things we don't want or need.
why should I be forced to pay premiums for things that I don't need or will ever use
My first employee health insurance card was stamped $300 maternity benefit $600 Caesarian. I thought, Gee thanks.
fls, I didn't realize you get your first insurance plan in 1945!
My first employee health insurance card was stamped $300 maternity benefit $600 Caesarian. I thought, Gee thanks
LOL.. This is the problem with having health insurance tied to a group plan at work. Unless you have a really large group where you can have multiple selections, the employer is forced to try to pick out the program that fits for the majority of the work force.
A better option would be to let employers pool their plans, perhaps geographically, so that instead of dealing with a pool of 8 clerks in your hardware store, you are pooled with hundreds of other retail establishments and can have better choices.....and less expensive choices.
This one size fits all from the Dems is a real problem and one of the main reasons that people object. Why should a 21 year old single person be forced to have the same coverage as a 55 year old married with a grown up family, or a 32 year old with a pregnant wife and small children.
It makes no economic sense other than to force the young and the old to pony up more money than they would otherwise.
vw: shfuct. Not sure but I think word verification is swearing at me.
read on twitter today that the dems in congress should just band together to vote NO and screw this stupid woman Pelosi out of her leadership position. Sounds good to me. She's quite the little tyrant.
All the arm-twisting that's gone on in Washington should be a boon to chiropractors. Will they be covered by Obamacare?
Medical care was not free except at the Charity Hospital for the unemployed, retired, and eldery feeble persons. Then the post war benefit packages in place oh pay increases and labor contract created started a trend to offer it to "Keep good employees from going bankrupt or seekinga unionization route. Those were usually Major Medical Plans only, and payed only 80% after you satisfied the annual per person deductibles. The Medicare concept for nearly Free Doctors and hospitals opened peoples' expectations for free care, and that means eliminating the current system that works well enough by flipping everyone onto a Medicare plan, and paying half what they pay now which means a cut in half of services by the Live Awhile Longer Maybe Panels. Guess who is exempt from this disaster? The Unions and the Government Employees who screwed up everyone else's plans.
Once again, emphasizing the problem. They're more concerned with voting on something rather than getting it right.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा