« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

It doesn’t feel like it, but We Are Winning the Fight Against ObamaCare — Updated

It does not feel like it, but we are winning the war against ObamaCare.

You may feel like the political system is broken and the Democrats are not listening to the voters. You feel that way because it is true, the Democrats are not listening. But that does not mean the bill will not die — because it turns out that the two Independent Senators are listening.

Clearly, the Democratic Senate leadership and the White House put so much pressure on the so-called moderate Senators to win this one vote to proceed to the bill, they created a political mirage that the bill’s chances are strong. But they are not. The bill is very brittle, and when it implodes, it will shatter.

As the bill stands right now, the Democrats cannot pass it. They cannot get to 60 votes on the vote to end the filibuster of the bill.

If they try to take the public option out, Senator Sanders and others (Burris, Brown and Franken) are threatening to vote against ending the filibuster. If they keep the public option in, then Senator Lieberman has threatened to vote against ending the filibuster. Either way — public option in or out — the bill dies. And Senator Sanders is not going to agree to any co-oped-trigger-opt-out compromise on the public option.

Is it any surprise that the two Independent Senators have put the Senate in this position? They are listening to the public, and are playing a role that no single Democratic Senator has the courage to play — you know, listen to your voters.

Turns out the moderates like Senators Lincoln, Landrieu and Nelson are now viewed by their voters as servants of Senator Reid and the White House. They destroyed all their work to try and get their voters to see them as something other than liberal Democrats who will just spend and tax and spend. This was the highest price Senator Reid paid to win the vote to proceed to the bill: he has forced the so-called moderate Senators look like lap-dogs.

Now the moderates are going to have to do something equally dramatic to convince their voters they are not puppets of Senator Reid and the White House. And the only thing dramatic enough is to vote against ending the filibuster of the ObamaCare. It is the only vote that matters now.

Meanwhile, the Dems sink farther in the polls the longer health care is front and center — and the Senate rules are going to make sure the health care bill is front and center. Here is how:

Every single amendment offered on the Senate floor will be filibustered. Every single one, so the Dems will need, again, 60 votes, just to attempt to vote on an amendment to the Reid bill. Here is how Senator Lieberman described the Senate floor on ObamaCare over the weekend:

“[O]nce the bill is on the floor, amendments will be offered,” he said on Sunday. “But essentially every amendment is subject to a filibuster and will take 60 votes to pass. My only resort, and every other senator — and there will be others who feel exactly the way I do about the public option, if the public option is still in there — the only resort we have is to say no at the end to reporting the bill off the floor.”

Finally, I am really shocked, but some one in the Democratic party is talking rationally about the negative political impact health care is having on their members and on the Democratic Congress. (Usually this concern is expressed by Democrats as — we need to focus on jobs and the economy.)

But this morning was different. Howard Dean (the former National Democratic Party Chairman) said the Democrats were “playing with dynamite” and that health care was opening up “huge divisions within the Democratic party” and that there are going to be “high costs” in terms of lost Congressional seats in 2010, because President Obama will not be on the ballot. Dean also said without a public option, the activists will sit on their hands in 2010. Clearly, the left is worried the public option will be dropped to get Senator Lieberman’s vote and are now positioning themselves, through Senator Sanders and Howard Dean, to stop that from happening.

But what Howard Dean and Bernie Sanders and Senator Lieberman are really doing is laying the political framework for the collapse of ObamaCare — because they believe the political costs of passing something with or without a public option are just too high — and I agree with them.

(Rich Lowry also agrees that the health care issue is killing the Democrats politically. “The Democrats Health Care Delusion,” is particularly harsh, and one I agree with.)

And the public option is just one of many politically damaging issues the Democrats must deal with in the Senate: abortion, tax increases, huge spending increases, Medicare cuts and government control of health care, are all going to be in play.

There are other political forces at work too: Senator Sanders and Howard Dean likely sees that the left will take the blame for health care costing huge numbers of House and Senate seats in 2010, and it will impair the left’s entire non-health care agenda. So they are now trying to build a firewall against that blame — by pointing to any lack of a public option as the real cause of the collapse of health care reform.

Just for the record, on cloture votes in the U.S. Senate, the anti-ObamaCare and pro-ObamaCare forces are tied, 1-1. We won the “doc fix” cloture vote by 13 votes, and U.S. Senate Majority Leader Reid won the recent cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the bill by not a single vote to spare.

Now, the moderates must go above and beyond opposing the White House and Senator Reid for them to earn their so-called moderate label back. Right now, the voters are never going to believe these Senators again about happy-talk about being concerned about the public option, or the deficit, or being pro-life, or fighting against new taxes, or opposing Medicare cuts.

The only way they are going to be able to prove they are truly concerned is for them to vote against ending the filibuster of the bill, and actually kill the bill. But it doesn’t matter if these Dems cave on the filibuster, the Independent Senators have said they won’t.

Perhaps this is why Senator Lieberman said on Sunday, “I don’t think anybody thinks this bill will pass.”

UPDATE, with a H/T to Drudge, for making this his lead story: Gerald F. Seib’s opening from his story “Lieberman Digs In on Public Option,” from the Wall Street Journal, is worth quoting:

“Sen. Joseph Lieberman, speaking in that trademark sonorous baritone, utters a simple statement that translates into real trouble for Democratic leaders: “I’m going to be stubborn on this.”

Stubborn, he means, in opposing any health-care overhaul that includes a “public option,” or government-run health-insurance plan, as the current bill does. His opposition is strong enough that Mr. Lieberman says he won’t vote to let a bill come to a final vote if a public option is included.

Probe for a catch or caveat in that opposition, and none is visible. Can he support a public option if states could opt out of the plan, as the current bill provides? “The answer is no,” he says in an interview from his Senate office. “I feel very strongly about this.” How about a trigger, a mechanism for including a public option along with a provision saying it won’t be used unless private insurance plans aren’t spreading coverage far and fast enough? No again.

So any version of a public option will compel Mr. Lieberman to vote against bringing a bill to a final vote? “Correct,” he says.”

Hmmm, says I.

COMMENTS

  • richterm

    Thanks Dan…that’s real actual Hope.

    • Dan Perrin

      And Lawerence O’Donnell, chief aide to Senator Moynihan (former Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee during the ClintonCare fight does not believe it will pass.

      http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29798.html

      And the story above is titled “How health care refrom could fall apart”

      • rbdwiggins

        300,000 copies of Sarah Palin’s Going Rogue sold in the first day.

        35,000 people showing up at “The Villages” to hear Glen Beck speak.

        Much to the detriment of the Progressives, they have awakened a heretofore sleeping giant.

  • redneck_hippie
    • Dan Perrin

      No worries, my pleasure

  • Section9

    Burris, Brown, Franken, and Sanders will obviously be told on the QT that the Public Option will be put back in later, that this is the Camel’s Nose in the Tent.

    They can’t be that doctrinaire.

    The preferred option, imho, is for the WH and Reid to nail Snowe and Collins and work on Blanche.

    Collins and Blanche will probably fold up faster than a three-card monte dealer being chased by the Transit Police if she’s given the right inducements.

    I just don’t see the Socialist Four voting to kill Barack’s Big Ambition.

    • Dan Perrin

      the politics of fail are going to win out over the politics of policy.

      Regardless, they have a 60 vote problem, And given the Senate phones shutting down problem they had over the weekend, and their polling problem, I just don’t see them getting it done.

  • 77redcounties

    Some of them must be good people with an open mind?

    During a campaign the air is full of speeches – and vice versa. ~Author Unknown

    • Dan Perrin

      they do not have the backbone to listen to their state and stand up to the White House and to Senator Reid.

      The Democrats have really hurt themselves with the independent voters and they are teaching the independent voters not to believe a word they say about their concerns, because they will just do what they are told when they get to Washington, D.C.

  • Castor

    Blanche Lincoln has already sealed her defeat next November.Ben Nelson has until 2012 and could recover, but if he runs against someone strong could lose.
    Landrieu has more time, until 2014. That?s an eternity in politics. Maybe we should do the samething to her like we did to Pomeroy except instead of sending fake dog poo, send condoms instead. Any comments?

    • Third Street

      That, I fear, is their calculation. The GOP wave in ’10 would have to be so enormous as to give us two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress in order to cancel national health care and override Obama’s veto, and there’s no chance of that.

      • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

        and pass tax cuts to restore the people’s money to them.

        • redpens

          conservative majority. RINO’s need not apply!

        • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

          (and declare ObamaCare a constitutional right). If they declare that defunding is unconstitutional, either Congress will need to engage in a confrontation withe courts, which hasn’t happened since before the Civil war (if ever – please correct me constitutional scholars if Congress has defied an SC declaration that a law is unconstitutional) – or Obama will be entrenched in stone.

          We’ve already seen Federal courts preventing legislative budget cuts in California, so it’s not like some Federal judges will shy away from ordering funding.

          • Dan Perrin

            and I believe we will succeed.

    • ecroper

      This is good stuff and I have a feeling its going to get even better. The sleeping Giant is awakening. Hahahahahahahhahhahaah.

    • ecroper

      Thats Funny. I have a feeling Its going to get even better, well worse for them before it gets better.nontheless, better for us.That Political Pornowill get you every time, literally hahaheehahehahaha!!!

  • bk

    I appreciate your insight as usual…

    - As Section 9 says, I can’t see anyone from the left voting to filibuster the bill. There is zero chance that a Sanders or a Brown would do that isn’t there?

    - Is filibustering every amendment worthwhile? If some Stupak-like amendment is offered, we are back in the situation in the House where the debate was over leaving it out as a supposed poison pill. Could the GOP shoot itself in the foot if they try to filibuster a “good” amendment? And if the GOP stalls on the “bad” amendments, will the Democrats do the same on the “good” ones? Does filibustering an amendment hold up the bill or does it just kill the amendment? (Maybe that’s the crucial point. I’m assuming the latter.)

    - Reid hopes that a Snowe or two will cross over. Let’s say that doesn’t happen, and it comes down to needing all 60 Democrats. And let’s say that the lefties won’t block it, and it comes down to Nelson, Lieberman, and Lincoln. Is there ANY chance you can see that these people can be convinced to pull a copout of “This is so important that it deserves a full vote, so I will vote to end cloture but then will vote against the bill because I have these concerns…” regardless of what they promised earlier? I could see Lincoln liking that option, but it’s much harder to see Nelson or Lieberman folding like that.

    • Dan Perrin

      Lieberman: ‘I Don’t Think Anybody Thinks This Bill Will Pass’

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/22/lieberman-i-dont-think-an_n_366800.html

      • countessolenska

        Lieberman said that when talking about the bill “with” the public option, and as it stands right now. Amendments will be offered to make it more palatable.

        • ocleverone

          And how will this happen?

          • countessolenska

            Dan Perrin posted the Lieberman quote:

            Lieberman: ?I Don?t Think Anybody Thinks This Bill Will Pass?

            If you read the article further, you will see that Lieberman is saying that nobody thinks the bill will pass in its current form. It’s my belief that they will remove the public option to get the bill passed.

            I don’t know for sure what will happen. I do think that amendments will be offered and changes will be made to the bill to win moderate Democrats and liberals as well (if the public option is removed). Don’t ask me what that will look like. But the White House seems determined to pass something, as they believe that not passing any health care bill will be worse for them than passing one.

  • Third Street

    And you’re right… it doesn’t feel like we’re winning. I’m so cynical about these kamikaze bastards, I’ve been feeling resigned that there’s no way they don’t figure out a way to worm this through with all 60 of their guys on board. And yet I have to believe that won’t happen, because if they get this through the entire country is literally going to stop, and fracture.

    • Dan Perrin

      the Huffington Post, and the link to the politico article:

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/22/lieberman-i-dont-think-an_n_366800.html

      http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29798.html

  • ericstenner

    It is easier to overcome a tough political vote if you have something to bring home to the voters. All they have to do is throw in $300 mil for each senator who is on the fence. Feels like this is going to pass.

    How much of this can be undone down the road? If it does pass and is implemented, it will likely be with us forever, right? Or are there things that could be done by a Republican president and congressional majorities between 2012 and 2014, or whenever it would take effect?

    • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

      I mean, bribery plus deliberately causing financial disaster is worse than bribery. Right?

      • martyinaz

        The problem is we are dealing with politicians. Only too often, they can say anything, then do anything contrary to what they said, and a year later be forgiven at the polls. I don?t trust any of them. They lie, they cheat and in some cases they steal, and most of the time they get away with it. Senate ethics is the biggest oxymoron in the English language.

    • http://www.the41stvote.org rcov092

      the economic structure of the United Sates collapses under the weight of the debt. The fantasy that we will cover 30 million people for free and not impact the deficit is only the folly of the truly brain dead.

      If this passes, it is time to turn to the states, fight to strengthen them, creat another currency system underneath the feds to replace the dollar when all Federal Systems Collapse and start Over. So:

      Keep storing Guns
      Keep Accumulating Ammo
      Put away a years worth of food.

      At this point, maybe starting over, like Jefferson, Franklin Adams and the rest would be a good thing. Then we could fix the few mistakes they made that allowed evil people to leverage in for the kill.

      We have to remember, The Federal Government is a creature of the States – until we say no more. We have 50 state governments in place to deliver the minimal “required” services for survival. Yes there will be a great deal of sacrifice. From my perspective, any price is worth paying to live as a free man or die before becoming Obama’s slave.

  • danielbdp

    I wouldn’t be so quick to assume Senators Lieberman and Sanders, and others currently expressing opposition, can’t all be bought off by dirty dingy Harry with our tax money – after all, I DON’T SEE THE AMOUNT OF PUBLIC OUTRAGE BEFITTING THE “LOUISIANA PURCHASE”!!!

    PLEASE, ANY CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYERS ON THE BLOG? AT WHAT POINT CAN A CAUSE AGAINST REID FOR OUTRIGHT BRIBERY AND MISAPPROPRIATION OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS BE MADE TO STICK?

    ARE THE SENATE AND ITS SENATORS IN PARTICULAR IMMUNE FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMPEACHMENT CLAUSES?

    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_2_5.html

    Impeachment Clauses (original English text)

    Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5

    The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

    Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7

    The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside; And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

    Judgement in Cases of Impreachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.

    Article 2, Section 4

    The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

    Article 3, Section 1

    . . . The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour. . . .

    • Dan Perrin

      then be bought off.

      It’s another thing to say your going to vote against the cloture vote on the filibuster of the bill, and then not do what you say you were going to do.

      Every so-called moderate voted with Senator Reid and the White House, but they did not announce before the vote they would not — not like Senator Lieberman has done.

    • martyinaz

      Reread Article 1 Section 3 Clause 6.
      It will take a two thirds majority to impesach.
      Hmmm, let’s see the majority in the Senate are Democrats. How do you get enough votes to impeach when a pack of wolves are guarding the sheep?
      I suggest we work hard at keeping those senators’ E-mail boxes full. Write to them every day if necessary. Flood them with notes on your position. Share your coments with others so they have something fresh to say to their senator. And finally, KEEP YOUR EYES ON THE PRIZE. WE NEED TO REGAIN THE HOUSE IN NOVEMBER 2010. That alone will silence Obama. Let a Republican Speaker blame everything that is wrong on the planet on Obama, just as Pelosi has blamed President Bush.
      God help us if Obama goes to Copenhagen and signs the CO2 footprint treaty proposed by the UN. We will be forced to pay reparations to ALL countries with a smaller CO2 footprint than the USA. My God, that’s every country in the world. We will go broke overnight.

  • vamoose

    I sometimes wonder whether Obama’s election came at a time when their were still enough Americans who believe in America to turn back socialism, and in the process re-instill to future generations the greatness of our democracy. Had we been allowed to remain complacent another dozen years who knows if the will to oppose a takeover by the state would exist. The Democrat’s health care legislation, (I can’t call it reform, because it’s not), started out as an effort to get it passed before losing the consent of the governed. It is rather amazing that having lost that consent Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the Democratic party power structure insist upon its passage. The Democrats have awaken a sleeping giant: the majority of Americans that oppose this legislation. But being awake is not enough. We must be filled with a terrible resolve.

    • Dan Perrin

      plain and simple.

      Our strategic position is very good.

  • irishgirl

    Things look pretty discouraging right now, but there is always hope and I do hope your analysis is correct.

    • Dan Perrin

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/22/lieberman-i-dont-think-an_n_366800.html

      http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29798.html

  • crosley

    If no Republican crosses over, and Lieberman keeps his word and doesn’t vote for cloture, Democrat Senators will count the votes and see the bill can’t be passed. Won’t that open the floodgates for the moderate Dems to vote against this monstrosity? No single Democrat wants to take the fall for this if they’re truly close to 60, but once that’s off the table, I could see a huge number jumping ship.

    If there’s no chance they get to 60, I wouldn’t be surprised if 10 Democrat Senators end up voting against it, similar to the situation with amnesty where they couldn’t even get over 50 when the final vote actually came down.

    The ideal scenario for Republicans would be if every Democrat votes for it, but Lieberman ends up killing it. All those Democrats will then have to back to their conservative states and explain their vote.

    • vamoose

      I think you are right, if Lieberman votes against cloture he will not be alone. Lieberman has already proven that he can win reelection even when his own party opposes him. The only possible way I see Lieberman being bought off is for Middle East policy concessions from Obama.

    • Dan Perrin

      they will try and out-moderate each other, and the vote will change radically.

      This is what happened on the immigration bill, they got to 58 votes, and when they realized they could not get any more, they lost another nine.

      Senators did not want to take the hit and vote for it if it was going to fail.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    …my proclivity is not to bank on failure. Just one quick breeze around the internet and you will find a plethora of people who said there would not be 60 votes on cloture.

    In addition, I seem to remember that banking on failure of the opposition (while curiously trying to be more like them) seems to have been a dead-end road for Republicans over the past few years.

    I understand the legislative hurdles and have numerous friends on the Hill who feel passing this legislation is a bridge too far. So I embrace the spirit of what you are saying- just not the message.

    We have thus far underestimated the fundamental conviction of Democrats to proceed against the collective will of our populace. To Democrats, this is war and worth the battle casualties- provided in the end they win. We should know the enemy by now and be willing to have our offensive battle plan ready. Proceed as if they will be victorious, don’t hope they drown in the river.

    “The Plan”, you say? That would berestating the Republican alternative, ad nauseum. It should be package into small, easily understood pieces to show we have a plan that works for all Americans which does NOT destroy our healthcare system, result in confiscatory levels of taxation, destroy small business, force people to buy healthcare (or go to jail), take away healthcare choices from people and turn them over to the government and ultimately ruin the greatest healthcare system on the planet.

    Show them we can LEAD and win.

    • hkowabunga

      This bill is not about healthcare.

      It’s about control.

      That is why the WH is willing to do anything, say anything, spend anything to get the bill passed, because ONCE THE BILL IS PASSED, THEY WILL HAVE EVEN MORE POWER AND MONEY TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT. The WH can afford to throw money around. Those Democratic senators that are expressing resverations are just holding out for their share of the prize.

      Why do you think that the bill collects the money upfront, but delivers the services later?

      If the Republicans try to turn this into a healthcare issue, the entire country will lose.

      This bill has to be destroyed.

    • ericstenner

      Won’t the Republican alternative keep getting beaten down by cries that it does not cover enough people? I completely agree that it is the right type of reform, but this is starting to feel like the Simpsons episode where Homer runs for Sanitation Commissioner on the platform that the garbage man will change your kids’ diapers and mop your floor for you. Level-headed and logical opposition will fall on deaf ears.

      As Obama’s poll numbers drop, it seems like a good strategy would be to hammer away at all his other policies as well. The more the health debate drags on, the easier it might be for senators to cast that No vote if the president’s approval is in the low 40′s.

      • Marcus_Traianus

        The Republican Plan starts simple and tries to correct some of the fundamental ills, if you will, in our healthcare system. This type of ground up approach is easily understood by everyday people because it remedies very simplistic, yet destructive aspects of the industry.

        Will it cover every person? No, but neither will the Democrats plan. In fact, I have not reviewed any planned option that will.

        • countessolenska

          Are any Senate Republican bills in play?

          I think Republicans are too focused on 2010 and picking up seats and not focusing enough on stopping this bill. If this passes, just like Medicare and Social Security are untouchable by either party, government health care will be untouchable – and then, how can conservatives remain conservatives?

          I don’t see any possible positive outcome if this bill passes, even if the rest of Obama’s agenda gets stalled by Republican gains in the midterm.

    • Third Street

      Because the simple reality is they have 60 seats in the Senate. The Republicans can be unified and it won’t make any difference; at the end of the day the bill will pass or fail depending on whether the Democrats fall apart. Elections, as they say, have consequences.

      • Dan Perrin

        and offering of non-germane amendments to the bill is essential to winning this floor fight.

        All of which are going to happen.

        • Dan Perrin

          the strategy is to use every tactic we have got to help it fail more (see filibuster all amendments and offer non-germane amendments.)

          • redneck_hippie

            Something tells me that the last thing the D’s want is for us to completely obstruct, fillibuster and embrace the HELL NO strategy. They think they can guilt trip us into compromising. But if we get this done, they can fingerpoint from the bill’s failure till the second coming of Obama and it won’t do them any good.

            What the Ds have lost irretreivably is the war of public opinion. We just need to keep the pressure up.

            Bottom line, this fight is really in order to prop up their messiah. That is what makes this so scary to me. With amnesty, nobody was worrying about their vote bringing down the presidency. But here and now the Ds know failure of the bill equals Armageddon, something I realized after a Sunday afternoon troll visitation on these boards. Passage puts the crown jewel on Obama’s socialist crown.

            To me this fixation with propping up Obama’s failed presidency explains all the idiocy (that part not explained by bribery by Devil Harry).

            Pass the bill and Obama reigns supreme. Fail and Obama fails even more than he already has. And without Obama They Got Nothing.

        • Marcus_Traianus

          we should be out front, pushing the Republican version as our primary assault. The secondary battles (and guerrilla ops) should be the filibusters, et al legislative tactics.

          I don’t think WE disagree. I think you and I collectively disagree with the GOP consultants and other party apparatus that believe in the singular frontal assault. If memory serves me correctly, these are the mostly the same people that got us lost in the woods. So on that note, I will use my own compass, not theirs.

      • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

        There are 58 Democrats plus 2 independents, though Sanders is a reliable vote for the Democrats.

        If can prevent Republican defections, then Lieberman alone can sink cloture, though we haven’t seen whether he can be given enough carrots.

        So it’s not entirely true that we have to have a Democrat defector – though ti’s very perilous to rely on a one-vote margin because that leaves too much to integrity.

        • Dan Perrin

          for this to work, all the Republicans have to be on board, which I expect they will, simply because the Dems will not agree to the trigger to get Snowe’s vote. There left flank will not let them.

  • AceInTX

    I’m worried because they’ve already gotten far closer than I figured they would and I hope we’re not fooled again….the closer they get the more likely it is that they’ll destroy it themselves with the infighting…but what worries me is that I would have thought the infighting would already have destroyed this.

    Kind of makes me wonder how the Dems keep their members in line on this….maybe there is a file cabinet somewhere with pictures of congressmen in bed with dead girls…or little boys…because I’m seeing Dems voting against their own best interests…there has to be either huge money buying their votes…or prison or worse to threaten them!

    • E Pluribus Unum

      The Man Who Should e President reminds us (yet again) why that is so.

      • AceInTX
    • Dan Perrin

      but they are now at the point they must deal with them. They cannot ignore them now.

    • countessolenska

      But doesn’t Thompson realize that independents are sick of big-spending Republicans too?

      • Aaron Gardner
        • countessolenska

          I’m obsessed about the health care bill and how bad I think it would be if it passed. Maybe that’s a sick obession and I should just go climb Mount Whitney instead.

          • Aaron Gardner
      • Vegas_Rick

        and ask THAT question? Seems to me that “big-spending Republicans” are part of “what’s going on in Washington.”

        So, yeah, I think the Senator gets it.

      • Scope

        is not, nor has ever been, a big spending republican. Your trolling is as tiresome as your putting every republican in the same category.

      • Scope

        is not, nor has ever been, a big spending republican. Your trolling is as tiresome as your putting every republican in the same category.

      • AceInTX
  • throwback59

    bill of a 2007 (I believe). It passed cloture with 64 votes and was considered on it’s way to passing. The president supported it, McCain and much of Congress did. Then the public started melting the phone lines and the bill quickly died. We can do the same to this new monstrosity.

    • redpens

      we beat sham-nesty, we can beat Commie-care

    • Scope

      is that the Liberals could care less about what the majority of the population wants.

    • Scope

      is that the Liberals could care less about what the majority of the population wants.

  • jjp7

    Even though there may be some hope… I keep calling my Senator’s office and encourage everyone to do the same. Strength is in numbers. They need to see that we want debate and that their actions will have a consequence.

  • E Pluribus Unum

    Surprisingly (if we look back to January 1, the Senate Republicans have learned to stick together, and use their 40-person minority to force every single Democrat to vote in favor of the Obama agenda. Unlike in the House, where they can rotate the pain, allowing Democrats in moderate districts (notice how I did not say “moderate Democrats”) to sometimes vote against, as long as they can get their 218.

    They are in for some extremely hard choices in the upcoming battle. I don’t know that we will win, but I like our chances. And win or lose, the elections of 2010 will be the Waterloo (better, the Gettysburg) of the Democrats in both Houses.

    • Dan Perrin

      on the outcome.

      I like our chances too.

    • Achance

      after Gettysburg. And had not Jefferson Davis succombed to political pressure and relieved Johnson thus ending the battle of attrition and maneuver before Atlanta, Lincoln’s defeat in 1864 was a foregone conclusion. Hood’s foolhardiness before Atlanta enabled him to make the gift of Atlanta to Lincoln and the US in September saving Lincoln’s Presidency and, thus, the US position in The War.

      My point is that even in the Civil War, US victory was predicated on the other side’s mistake. You can be sure that the Ds learned from HillaryCare and from Amnesty. They have to stay “all in” and they know it. If they don’t pass the whole agenda and “transform” America into something other than a republican democracy, they are pitched into the outer darkness for a very long time. They know this and they will stick together.

      I don’t believe that CommieCare can be stopped. I’d like to be wrong, but politicians are practical creatures and the Ds can figure it out; the big three are for the money, marbles, and chalk. They have to pass CommieCare, Kap and Kill, and Card Check. If they do, US elections will be like union elections thereafter; there’ll be the approved slate and the people marked for elimination. If they don’t, no more big chairs for Democrats for a very long time.

      • E Pluribus Unum

        I know it dragged on, and I know the South misplayed Sherman, but I am not sure that ultimately there was any possibility, post-Gettsyburg, of the South even fighting them to a draw and a cease-fire.

        As to the big three being do-or-die, I agree with you on the concept, and on about 55 of the 60 Dem Senators. They have to get all three to win, and if they get 2 out of 3, then the whole Democratic Party will be cast into outer darkness for decades, and we will have our *real* Reagan Revolution.

        But I believe the requirement that they get all 60 will prove their undoing on BambiCare. Their far lefties are crazy and irrational.

        But if they get their big 3 passed (which I don’t think they can get done) then we are looking at a 10-year countdown to armed insurrection. This ain’t Czarist Russia – Americans remember freedom, and they’ll not stand for a takeover.

        • Achance

          Vicksburg and the subsequent acts to put the Mississippi firmly in union control cut the CSA off from the supplies in the Trans-Mississippi. Most of the blockade running had been to and through Mexico and Texas. Most of the livestock had come from the Trans-Mississippi. When the US cut off the Trans-Mississippi, the CS began to starve and ultimately fell more to starvation than to actual military action. The significance of ATL was that it allowed the US to prolong the war so that the war of attrition and starvation could run its course.

          And, I wish I knew. I think they pass them all if they move quickly. We need to play for time and try to extract a terrible toll on them in ’10. I do think, though, that they made a potentially mortal mistake by not doing card check first. It is perhaps the most anti-democratic legisation the US has ever seen and if they’d passed it first, no business in the Country would have dared oppose the government and the unions; the rest would have just falln into place. They got greedy and tried healthcare first and we were able to rouse some substantive and well-financed oppostion. Hopefully we can make them pay for the mistake.

          • E Pluribus Unum

            It would have been so simple to stick that in as an amendment to some appropriations bill, or in reconciliation to something or other. The result to a democratic republic would have been been well night unsurvivable. I am guessing that Porkulus (on the heels of TARP and that Obama coronation) came so seemingly easy they thought they’d go for the kill, all in one shot.

            Bad, bad move, tactically speaking.

  • polthereal

    I wish it were so, but the Democrats can certainly play hardball. I’m worried they’ll wind up giving health care to millions of people!

    • Dan Perrin

      on the filibuster of the bill.

      Senator Lieberman, unlike his colleagues, announced weeks ago and keeps repeating it, that he will not vote to end the filibuster.

      • countessolenska

        the “trigger” public option plan?

        Do we know if Snowe is opposed to anything else in the Reid bill aside from the “opt-out” public option?

        • Dan Perrin

          is that they lose votes on the left, specifically, Sanders.

          • countessolenska

            To persuade liberal Democrats that the public option is not worth the fight, as it’s so weak anyway.

            Josh Marshall argues at Talking Points Memo today.

            “Now, there are many people who look at this and say that the bill(s) under discussion are so anemic that they’re maybe not worth fighting for at all. And that’s certainly a legitimate opinion. But I think there’s another question. Considering how down to the wire this is, is it really worth holding up everything else contained in the bill when the point of contention, the public option, is as measly as it is?”

          • IJB

            My fear here is that this is all a ‘bait-and-switch’, and the Dems’ “Grand Compromise” among themselves is to pull ‘public option’ and replace it with a true Single Payer (nationalization) scheme, and hail this as solving all the problems in the bill.

            I really feel like the groundwork is sort of being laid down for that, and it has me a little paranoid…

        • countessolenska

          I found the answer to my question. Lieberman will not support a “triggered” public option either.

          From the Wall Street Journal today:

          http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125900412679261049.html

      • Scope

        Liberman had to switch parties in Conn. and run as an independent to win reelection. He campaigned for McCain. The D party was going to punish him for that by taking away his committee position. He capitualated in order to retain his committee position, and, agreed to caucus with the Democrats. If he votes against Obamacare, what other party can he run to to win reelection?

        • Dan Perrin

          at Lieberman and he kicked their butt.

          He is not afraid of them. He’s fought them on Iraq, Afghanistan and now on socialized medicine.

          Also, he does not need the Democratic party.

        • rbdwiggins

          within the Republican caucus should Sen. Lieberman fall from the Democrats’ grace. “Ranking Member” would be a small price to pay for breaking Reid’s super-majority in the US Senate. As far as I’m concerned, he could just make the move within the Homeland Security Committee.

          Sen. Lieberman doesn’t need the Connecticut Democrat Party. Just the support and respect from his constituents.

          • redneck_hippie

            something like this happens, Lieberman will be a saint in my eyes. Okay, a hero, whatever.

            I said before the motion to proceed passed, I wanted to see someone have a 3 am conversion and decide a party switch was in their future. To vote no and stay with the Democrats is not realistic.

  • Ausonius

    I hope Mr. Perrin is correct like everyone else, but the problems are:

    1. Dems will N O T allow BIG BRObama to fail. So something will pass: it is a matter of the degree of destruction to America it will cause.

    2. Every Senator has a price – or so it seems, and that includes moron Republican senators from Maine.

    3. The Republican plan has no publicity and no “face” to convey it to the public as a logical, cost-conservative, and effective alternative to the 2,000 page monster of the Dems.

    • lurker9876

      Will Reid pay 300 million for each to buy their votes to end the filibuster?

      If and only if they are for public option.

      Snowe isn’t but then neither were Landrieu, Lincoln, and Nelson.

      • Scope

        it will go up from there. So much goes for the CBO putting a price of $849 billion on the plan. After Landrieu the bill will grow beyond immagination.

        • Dan Perrin

          And for many on the left, the price in terms of changes to the bill to get Nelson and Lincoln and others will be too high, with too many things they want and did not get or things they oppose.

          If you then add, spending, taxes, Medicare cuts, abortion and non-germane amendments, well, you can easily get to FAIL.

          • Ausonius

            Remember that the BIG BRObama agenda is economic collapse: one must think like the enemy!

            The enemy wants to D E S T R O Y the American economy, but make it look like they are saving it through moronic propaganda and non sequiturs. After the meltdown, they have free reign to install a communistic government-managed economy with currency and wage-and-price controls…and very little freedom.

            Increasing taxes, increasing pork barrel spending, etc. can easily get you to passage of the Hell-th Care Bill, which will lead to bankruptcy and crisis, which is the real goal.

            Churchill once commented that Chamberlain’s mistake (along with other diplomats and politicians) before WW II was in treating Hitler and Stalin as if they were reasonable politicians…like themselves.

            BIG BRObama and company are N O T reasonable politicians.

          • Ausonius

            n/t

  • solvoreor

    Clearly this is got to be a good example of democratic partisan politics at it’s worst. The more we can see of it, the more it should be obvious that the deals made will undermine any legitimate claim that the bill will save money. It should also lead to a conclusion. Anything the legislature touches is ripe for pork barrel additions and back room deals. Which means

    Under ObamaCare getting treatement will take an act of congress.
    Literally.
    Without congressional funding there will be no money for treatment. What pork and deals will it take to get that through congress? How much time?
    More than we can afford,
    More time
    more expense
    and too many funds for clinics on the other side of those bridges to nowhere.

    But of course, Saul Alinsky would love it

    WmCraig

    • Dan Perrin

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

      • lurker9876

        this bill is passed and next year 2010 election switches the majority of both houses…can the new majorities repeal the bill before it goes into effect in 2011?

        • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

          Even if you could survive a Democratic fillibuster in the Senate, you’d still need 2/3rds in both Houses to overcome a certain Obama veto. Not happening.

          The only possible pushback is to try to sabotage implementation.

      • solvoreor

        I don’t suppose we know exactly what this document is, do we? Call me paranoid but since the dems want this to pass, and it says dem’s in the URL that makes me wonder if it is honest.

        Do you know what I mean?

        • rbdwiggins
  • martellus

    History will tell us that 97% of all legislation that clears the threshold on Saturday night becomes law.

    • Dan Perrin

      is very misleading, since large bills that the public is engage in — should not be lumped into this statistic.

      Like the immigration bill, for example, it got cloture on the motion to proceed, but then thrashed around on the Senate floor like a fish in the bottom of the boat, then, it died.

      • redpens

        Nobody gave the Penguins a chance to beat the Red Wings in Detroit
        either, since no pro sports team in any sport had won a Game 7 on the road in 30 years, and also it was the Detroit Red Wings on home ice. My point being, there’s always a chance. We can’t surrender, or our kids and grand-kids will have to pay for this monster all their lives.

        • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

          not over until the other Boxer is being carried out of the Ring on a stretcher…. even then, he can/will heal and come back to try and Fight again. We can NEVER let our guard down nor our voices be silent speaking out against. They want to lull people back to sleep and we sure can’t help them by declaring an over-confidence!

          • Dan Perrin

            NEVER

          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            Fight the Good Fight:

          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            is still what troubles me, as some may return to slumber…. as we both agree…. NEVER STOP FIGHTING and the Liberals won’t either!!! Guard can never be let down as we discussed.

  • mikedaire

    First and foremost, we must keep in mind that we are dealing with collectivists on an ideological level. That an individual politician seem to be voting against his own interests is, unfortunately, of little consequence to someone who puts the collective above all. The collective, in this case, being not America, but the Democratic party.

    Passage of this bill, which taxes the most productive to redistribute wealth to the least productive, will create a permanent government-dependent class that will overwhelm the rest of the country. Social security and medicare accomplished a portion of that with the seniors voting block. Now the collectivist have a rare opportunity to herd another large group of voters into their sphere of influence. Once this dependent class is created, the Democrats will control the country, despite any temporary set back they may experience in 2010 and 2012.

    So I fully expect the Democrats to unify around whatever emerges from the Senate debate. They will vote for nationalizing health care because it IS in their collective interest even if it is against their individual interests.

    Our only hope is that one or more of the Democratic senators resort to more individualistic behaviors and votes their parochial interests. But I’m not betting on it.

    • redneck_hippie

      I explained below the idiocy of voting for the bill as Ds trying to prop up the failed Obama presidency. I think the Ds believe their interests are still aligned with his presidency, most especially those who are collectivists. The scenario I need to see is Ds that are rational. On that we both agree. Where I don’t agree is the self-interest angle, because we already know what $300 million will accomplish.

    • Scope

      anyone even sniffing around changing Medicare or SS with the seniors at this time is looking into the fire from the dragon. When Bush wanted to include personal savings accounts, the Libs, and those seniors they fooled into believing they would lose “what they had paid into all their lives.” Until the younger generation takes a foothold, and pushes hard for opting out of Medicare and SS, or havving a transitory program, and having Healthcare savings accounts, it will not change. I’ve heard more and more about HSA’s being a popular choice, but, the Dems have convinced the current seniors that it would take away from their benefits, that they paid into all their lives. Fred Thompson had a great plan with phasing in the younger generation choices, while not harming seniors currently that have those benefits. Somehow someway someone has to take the bull by the hors, and, Fred’s idea met those demands half way.

  • http://itsonlywords55.wordpress.com itsonlywords

    Hersey’s point was that everyone can be purchased if only you can discover their currency and that doesn’t always involve dollars and cents.

    My fear is that some of these Senators, like Ben Nelso (or Snowe on the committee vote) can be bought for next to nothing.

    • Dan Perrin

      moderate credentials in the eyes of the public.

      They will have to kill the bill to get them back, and they are too much of White House lap-dogs to do that.

      I am never going to believe they will buck Obama on health care.

      They will have to show me first.

  • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

    at clinics across America to expose the “DIE-QUICKLY” (Dems: ‘Rep plan: Die Quickly’ – counter to “Death Panels” – EPIC O-FAIL again — baseless Welfare Reform attacks repeat) is indeed the DEMOCRAT OBAMAOCARE MODEL over the Mammography scandal (+Mammography scandal – Mammography scandal – Obamaocare will kill women)…. To let the world know Obamaocare will kill women. This was a tactic of Libs during Reagan with AIDS DIE IN sessions claiming Reagan was killing people —- HOROWITZ IS RIGHT IN THAT THIS IS FAIR TURNAROUND AS THESE SHOCK TACTICS GET COVERAGE!

    This was on today’s Glenn Beck show and no video available yet. Me or someone will bring it out once it is!

    • Dan Perrin

      and a great tactic for the 6 O’clock news.

      • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

        signs and reference to the Mammography SPIN going on (Mammography scandal – Obamaocare will kill women) will garner – at least local – coverage. Female TEApeaters should be working on coordinating a bunch of these events (only takes a few folks per location, as our Pro-Life groups have people at PP centers regularly) all over will turn heads and will be unable to be ignored — according to Horowitz.

        • justinian

          It’s true that rationing is terrible, and destructive to liberty, but it does not follow that by rationing they are trying to kill anyone.

          What they’re trying to do it control healthcare… people dying is a side effect. What you’re saying is that they’re DIRECTLY killing people. They aren’t.

          Instead, let’s try to win this one with logic, and reason–not crazy claims.

          • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

            When you ration by conducting a cost-benefit analysis that determines that certain lives are not “worth” saving because treatment costs too much in your book and thereby denies treatment to them as an option, that is permissive killing. Which bears just as moral culpability as actively killing them with lethal injection or a weapon.

          • justinian

            But by arguing that they are going to trying to kill people, opponents will be able to paint us as looney extremists.

            What we should be doing is educating people… let them come to the realization themselves that rationing would result in people being denied care! I guarantee that our message will be more effective that way.

            Educating people will require us to get into discussions with people about the historic and economic reasons why rationing occurs. It is far more effective to convince someone that there is no way to avoid shortages when prices are fixed, than it is to convince them that they are going to die, but not WHY they are going to die.

            Keep in mind that “the public option” continues to poll well. We need to convince people that this approach will result in worse overall care. The only way to do so is to educate people on the substance of the matter.

            SUBSTANCE. Obama doesn’t like it. He’s all style.

          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            appears you may not be aware of why I am being (only partly) sarcastic and over the top with it – see my first comment about the DIE IN (Die Quickly link) as it refers to the language Liberals/Democrats are using (therefore, pre-approved we respond in kind) as they deflect from the Death Panel panic they’ve had to go into.

            Perhaps you live under a rock and not seen this:

            Just like my point in the Sig, “He is NOT my president” is a TWEAK to Liberals/Democrats who we’ve heard that from for 8 years during Bush. But I can understand that you don’t know or understand why I might take the – fight fire with fire approach – to call them out. Plus, you obviously just don’t know me yet as a RS poster to have fully understood where I was coming from – and that is OK. Take care!

            Putting in place, KNOWINGLY, as the Liberals/Democrats are, IS PREMEDITATED! Socialized Medicine around the globe shows us exactly what is coming! This “Socialism” in the US isn’t going to somehow miraculously be “different” and “better” just because it is US Democrat elites that will be running the Panels, AdviCZARy committees, Health boards, [not-so-]NICE rationing, The Liberals engrained throughout HHS regardless of who is Secty there-of or POTUS, etc….

            DIE QUICKLY is what the Democrats plan for HC has been from the start, that is what makes it fit the Budget – not having folks to bother to cover.

          • justinian

            In my mind, what is most critical is educating people about how market reforms will ruin the medical system.

            There is a step between Step 1: Dems Pass Plan, and Step 3: People are Denied Care. Most people don’t understand Step 2: price fixing creates shortages, reduced funds for r & d result in less innovation, etc.

            Step 2 is what hurts them the most. Because once people know and UNDERSTAND why Step 2 is true, they will make the Step 3 conclusion themselves.

            Furthermore, knowing Step 2 will allow them to see liberal media and liberal shrills as substance-less boobs.

          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            your point is NOT without merit – on the contrary – I do understand where you are coming from and have made similar pleas that we use LOGIC and not scare tactics. This is a matter of knowing ones audience!!! Basic People Management 101…. Anyone open to reason/logic is ALREADY WITH US! This is about those Lefty-inclined fringes and how/what they respond to. However, your calling it “crazy” didn’t set a good tone and a big reason you’ve gotten blow-back.

            1. Knowing ones audience – who we are trying to reach in this case
            2. The value of Shock Headlines
            3. not limiting ourselves to one approach/tactic
            etc….

            unfortunately, our friend got hung up on that he thought we aren’t smart enough to couch the terms carefully (aside from Shock headlines) and insist that any/all Democrats want to kill people off intentionally (again, some may – they are on record in regard to Planet over-population, but this isn’t about those folks). My point, though you think I step over the line with some of my words is: EFFECTIVE EQUIVALENCE (as discussed in many HC primers: here, here, here, here, here, and HC issues summary here)

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            If so, why are you giving them the benefit of the doubt?

            What have they done to earn it?

            Remember that your question must explaina way the fact that the President has a longstanding relationship with an unrepentant terrorist, and voted against Illinois’s own BAIPA equivalent.

          • justinian

            This has NOTHING to do with Obama’s political affiliations. It has to do with the reasoning of Democratic party, and liberals who are in favor of the current health care reforms.

            I’m not giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. Do you really think the Democrats are TRYING to kill people, as if that is their primary goal?

            They’re not. They’re trying to shore up electoral power, and push a liberal agenda. Said agenda will significantly affect health care for the worse, but no one is directly trying to kill anyone.

            Making claims to the contrary only muddies the debate. This should be about how Obamacare hurts an individual’s ability to get the care that the individual and his/her doctor chooses (and of course, the massive spending included in the bills).

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            You keep asserting things about the motives of Democrats, but you supply no evidence.

            And to the contrary, you ‘re entirely wrong about Obama’s affiliations. They reflect on his character and his beliefs of right and wrong, on life and death.

            You’re telling us to assume good faith of the Democrats. We won’t. So now it’s up to you to demonstrate why we should.

          • justinian

            Where is the evidence that Democrats are INTENDING to kill people?

            Why does it matter? The point is to stop the bill from passing, not to try the Democrats for attempted murder!

            When you try to convince people by telling them that Democrats WANT to kill them, you alienate voters, and make people think that you’re crazy. You also can’t back up your claims.

            I make my arguments based on economics, and history. These concepts allow people to analyze other issues from the same limited government perspective. It doesn’t sound crazy, and I can back up my claims.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            You’ve just waved your hands and promised us the Democrats are good guys.

            And when pressed, you refused to back down.

            Where is your evidence for a single thing you’ve said?

          • justinian

            Where did I say Democrats were good guys?

            Let’s review:

            You say that Democrats are TRYING to kill people; you say the Democrats’ goals are death and destruction. You provide NO evidence for these claims.

            On the other hand, my argument does not depend on proving anyone’s intent. I say the foundations of economics and history (empirical evidence) are more likely to convince people to take a stand against Obamacare than making ABSURD claims about the Democrats’ intent to kill folks.

            I say the Democrats are pursing terrible legislation (which I also believe is unconstitutional). This argument does not depend on knowing the secret desires and whims of Harry Reid or anyone else. I’m not calling Democrats good or bad; I’m attacking their legislation, not them.

            On the other hand, your argument depends entirely on the morals and intents of Democrats, which will not convince reasonable people (reasonable people are people who use reason, just to spell that out).

            Just because I say that your claims are unfounded, it does not follow that I am defending the Democrats. I’m saying your argument is counterproductive, not that Nancy Pelosi is a nice person.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            You didn’t call JLenard’s point counter productive. You called it crazy.

            Are you retracting that earlier claim?

          • justinian

            It’s going to SOUND CRAZY to anyone who is listening.

            Congrats, by the way. Congrats for ignoring all of my points. I dismantled your entire argument, so now all you can do is bandy about some semantics and call me a liar.

          • justinian

            Should have been:
            “I’m Speechless that You Don’t Understand”

          • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

            Absurd? No. They are trying to kill people and they don’t particularly care which ones die as long as it’s not one of them.

            When they push legislation that they know is going to kill pepole because of rationing, they are trying to kill people.

            You can rationalize it any way your pea pickin’ liberal heart desites but they’re still going to kill people with the legislation they’re trying to cram down our throats.

          • justinian

            Your post clearly shows you have not read any of mine clearly enough, or just don’t understand my arguments at all.

            I love that you think I am a liberal. By using logic and reason, I have somehow made you think that I am a liberal. I hope you know that is totally, and utterly insane.

            Please point to where I endorse anything on the liberal agenda. Go ahead and try.

          • mschmitt

            When you say things such as:

            On the other hand, my argument does not depend on proving anyone?s intent. I say the foundations of economics and history (empirical evidence) are more likely to convince people to take a stand against Obamacare than making ABSURD claims about the Democrats? intent to kill folks.

            … we have a valid cause to question either your judgement or your honesty. The reason is that the Democrat’s health care plan has been promised to (A) reduce costs and (B) provide more services.

            We don’t need any documentation to prove to us that the only way to achieve those goals requires withdrawing care from those who are expensive to treat (ie., those who actually need it). To think otherwise is cognitive dissonance.

            I hope that resolves your confusion — it is, in fact, your logic and reasoning that we are questioning.

          • justinian

            First, thank you for at least addressing this question with intelligence.

            Second, the Democrats CLAIM to use empiricism and economics to justify their bill, but they do not actually use these methods. This is a distinction of style and substance. The Democrats are clearly using style, while we can use substance to rebut them.

            If you look at historical examples, and use economic evidence, you will find that Obamacare is extremely ill-advised. For example, let’s look at the price fixing they want to enforce. We KNOW that price fixing results in shortages, which will lead to rationing. This of course leads to rationed health care for the consumer. This sort of thinking is better because we can use it to attack other big government legislation. It also avoids the logical fallacy of “ad hominem.”

            My original beef was with the idea that Democrats have this dark evil intent. I agree that the RESULTS of their bill will be extremely destructive and will result in peoples’ deaths, which would have been prevented in a freer market system.

            However, I take issue with arguing that Democrats are trying, actively, to kill people. This would mean that Harry Reid dreams of killing people. This is totally unlikely. Could it be true? Sure. But is it probable? Nah.

            Moreover, such argumentation, EVEN IF IT WERE TRUE, will most likely lead to us alienating moderates and independents. We want these people to be convinced that Obamacare is bad news. What is the best way to do so? Use logical argumentation.

            And finally, since I am making my arguments based on the substance of the debate, I am making more effective arguments. For example, when Obama says he will lower the costs of healthcare, I rebut his argument by arguing he will increase the cost of healthcare, not by saying he secretly wants to kill people with glee.

            My own opinion on the matter is that the Democrats are pushing Obamacare because they believe in their liberal agenda, and that they think it will help them get reelected.

            I don’t care why they are doing it. I just want them to stop.

          • mschmitt

            Of course we know that price and wage fixing will lead to enormous problems; it is verifiable — as you say — but it won’t amount to a hill of beans when the other side is out there citing their own Facts (that’s a proper noun, by the way).

            You say “it’ll raise costs” and they say, “it’ll drop costs” — you cite your study, they cite theirs. It’s a complete, and total, wash — and they win, because they are the ones in power.

            Looking at the polls over the last few months, what I can say (with empirical certainty, if such a thing exists) is that the strategy of forcing the Democrats to explain how you can reduce costs and provide more services without rationing, and therefore, increase the probability of your untimely death.

            And, in fact, they are willing to sacrifice you, your family and anybody else in order to obtain the thing they want: power.

            This has forced them to demonize doctors, insurance and/or pharmaceuticals; in other words, it forces them into ad hominem attacks.

            And — empirically — this strategy has proven to be effective. It is simply not possible to hold the nations attention long enough to explain the economics of Obamacare (that is not to say that there isn’t a place for that, eg., the Heritage Foundation), nor is it really necessary when such a shallow fallacy in their argument exists. When they are able to explain how they are going to “fix the system” with something more substantial than good will and unicorn farts, then we’ll address the problem as you suggest; but I don’t see any reason to abandon a perfectly good strategy now.

          • mschmitt

            … the strategy of forcing the Democrats to explain how you can reduce costs and provide more services without rationing, and therefore, increase the probability of your untimely death.

            Should read:

            … the strategy of forcing the Democrats to explain how you can reduce costs and provide more services without rationing, and therefore, increase the probability of your untimely death is working.

          • justinian

            I agree with your power analysis.

            However, you take for granted the verifiable attacks on their plan. First, most Americans, don’t understand why price fixing is bad, which I can support with the polls that show that Americans want a “public option” to complete with private insurance. You and I know this is madness, but we also know WHY it is madness. Such knowledge helps us convince others to oppose the plan.

            Second it is not a total wash. Clearly most of your analysis of the declining poll numbers for healthcare demonstrates that Democrats look dishonest by having to defend their claims. When their arguments must be reconciled with reality, the result is an illogical defense for bad policy. So clearly logic and reason work.

            I don’t know where you stand on this, but I still argue that claiming Democrats desire to kill us in our sleep is a bad strategy, and really ignores the substantive issues.

            These substantive issues are what will convince the moderates and independents to vote for our candidates in 2010 and 2012.

          • mschmitt

            … that they’d push you down the well, just that they wouldn’t exactly rush to help, either (unless
            maybe you’re a young taxpayer or a reliable Democrat voter). Over the past few months, we’ve been able to do that precisely because it is so obviously true.

            The fact is, the Democrat’s know what this policy means for people (that’s why they won’t put themselves on it); and hence, every sling of mud they get is richly deserved. This, too, is something that the independents understand. If Obamacare wasn’t intended to thin the herd, why would Congress critters exempt themselves?

          • justinian

            Below you will see a poster who does not understand how rationing will come about due to the bill.

            This should serve as a warning regarding why we need to educate others and ourselves about this bill.

          • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

            I have read some of them… enough to know that you are rationalizing as a defense for the Democrats’ legislation. You think they care if anybody dies as a result of their policies.

            They are not going to save lives with what they do and are fully cognizant of the fact that a lot of people are going to die in the name of cost effectiveness.

            You can make the argument that insurance companies do the same but people can get around insurance companies dong it but who can get around government mandates?

            If I’m not mistaken there’s a legal term for that and no maatter how you try to rationalize there are going to be dead people as a consequence.

            The legislation they’re pushing on us ties the medical practitioners’ hands, too. Let’s say I’m forced onto their insurance and their bureaucracy refuses that mammogram or pap smear and I die from cancer.

            What if it were you and they refused to pay for a prostrate exam? What if you develop something that requires a bone marrow plant but you have multiple risk factors and they determine that it wouldn’t be cost effective to pay for such because of those factors?

            But you go right on ahead and believe they’re not trying to kill people.

          • justinian

            I am NOT defending anyone.

            You clearly have not read my posts. I totally and utterly oppose Obamacare.

            I believe their legislation WILL kill people. But, I argue that they do not THINK that they’re going to kill people.

            The difference, essentially, is the ability for us to try them for attempted first degree murder or manslaughter.

            Please read my posts fully before you respond to me again.

          • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

            You don’t think their legislation will kill people. The rest of us know full well that it will and we also know the Democrats know that it will but they’ll do it anyway falling upon their mantra of good intentions. They do not have the right to decide who lives and who dies in this manner but they’ll claim that right anyway.

            I have to say sometimes I wonder if we’re been ransported tback to the middle ages with only the thinnest of technological trapppings to hide the fact. The thinking is certainly regressing in that direction when government is looked upon as the solution to all ills.

          • justinian

            Did you miss this line?

            “I believe their legislation WILL kill people.”

            Or This one?

            “I believe their legislation WILL kill people.”

            Howbout this one?

            “I believe their legislation WILL kill people.”

            STOP responding to my posts if you aren’t going to read them.

            You really shouldn’t complain about our thinking “regressing” when you can’t even read.

          • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

            You belie your own words and keep repeating them incessantly as if you haven’t contradicted yourself.

            They know it will kill people and they don’t care. They have admitted it although they’ll never do it in a straightforward manner and come right out and say we claim the right to decide who lives and who dies.

            To be honest, I thought you said “I believe their legislation WILL kill people.” because you want to keep the discussion going until you can claim some victory by making somebody say something that is today’s trolls’ keyword. And as soon as somebody useds that word, you claim your victory and go back to KOS or where ever you hang your liberal hat to brag about it.

            So which word is it today?

          • justinian

            Steph, you need to learn to read. Please. For all of us.

          • justinian

            There is no defense you can provide. You tried to say I don’t believe something that I SPECIFICALLY stated in my previous post.

            And I stated it IN CAPS!

            Now you’re trying to cover up the fact that you didn’t read my post.

          • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

            Because you say one thing as if you’re on our side and then you defend the Dems by saying you think they don’t think? In spite of the fact that they’ve admitted they know it will kill people? In spite of the fact that it’s a massive power grab that will kill people?

            So what you’re saying is we’re supposed to read each word out of context so you can claim one thing while simultaneously disavowing it. But then, if we take it out of context you’ll claim the opposite.

            So, let’s see what you said here before today:

            http://www.redstate.com/dan_perrin/2009/11/20/the-buying-of-mary-landrieu/#comment-3265>/a>

            http://www.redstate.com/dan_perrin/2009/11/20/the-buying-of-mary-landrieu/#comment-3250

            http://www.redstate.com/dan_perrin/2009/11/20/the-buying-of-mary-landrieu/#comment-3247

            http://www.redstate.com/dan_perrin/2009/11/23/it-doesnt-feel-like-it-but-we-are-winning-the-fight-against-obamacare/#comment-3594

            And then to kick off the debate today: http://www.redstate.com/dan_perrin/2009/11/23/it-doesnt-feel-like-it-but-we-are-winning-the-fight-against-obamacare/#comment-3598 and I quote:

            t?s true that rationing is terrible, and destructive to liberty, but it does not follow that by rationing they are trying to kill anyone.

            What they?re trying to do it control healthcare? people dying is a side effect. What you?re saying is that they?re DIRECTLY killing people. They aren?t.

            Instead, let?s try to win this one with logic, and reason?not crazy claims.

          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            and I get/understand that….

            It all boils down to LIBERAL LAZINESS and the land of DENIAL Liberals/Democrats live in — they don’t/won’t care about any reasoned “economics” you put forth…. We’re just arguing what we deem to be “effective strategy” with/against people who have zero problem allowing children to be killed as long as they stay in DENIAL over whether or not it is a Child (in the words of many/several Liberal converts to Pro-Life (Kathy Ireland: best anti-abortion comments ever made and more on her words here)).

            What those of us resisting your point of view as to “effective strategy” presupposes that Liberals/Democrats are open to LOGIC, REASON, ECONOMICALLY SOUND POLICY, ETC…. which they never are. Democrats always couch things in the EMOTIONAL BASE as it allows those they reach in their KNEE-JERK Emotional response system that years of Indoctrination has programmed them to – to “believe” against any/all Facts, Reason, Logic, etc…. they may come across just because some notion is coming from a Liberal/Democrat speaker. LIBERAL LAZINESS & DENIAL is what it is all about.

            It is NOT that your approach isn’t reasonable, if dealing with “thinking folks” and those folks are already understanding how Obamaocare is about Govt. Takeover and NOT HC Insurance reform, and no-one (as best I can tell) is going to say that you shouldn’t try to reach folks you think you might be able to with your strategy — it is the arguments that have been made. Any 6th Grader can understand the numbers don’t add up, one leads to the other, if all the history of humankind is looked at objectively Obamaocare is doomed to providing lessor care for all — what is lacking is the DENIAL the adults you want to reach CHOOSE TO LIVE IN!

            They have again opened it up to the DIE QUICKLY false attacks to attempt to stick that to Conservatives and we choose to point out that it is indeed really Liberals/Democrats (purposefully or by their ignorance of Economics and/or history) are the ones putting ‘The Greater Good’ — “The needs of the many out-weigh the needs of the few, or the one.” at risk by attempting to DESTROY the HC system working for 300 Million people to cover a small percentage that are unhappy. It is only going at their MISCONCEPTIONS of their Indoctrination that any will be turned. They require something that shocks them into even to remotely pay attention for us to get down to that level of how the Economics don’t support the DEMOCRAT LIES.

            The Children don’t care how you have to pay for the Pony, they just are darn well expecting US to give it to them for Christmas — if that helps make the point.

            I can and do appreciate your desire to fight Obamaocare from your desired strategy and don’t want to discourage you from doing so. It’s just that I don’t think you’re going to get many converts that way. BUT, it is important that any and all methods be tried – and that is why I am going about it my way while you can/should go about it your way!

          • janis

            with their bill killing people. Haven’t you managed to read their various positions on abortion, including late term abortion, as well as their decision to ration health care to the elderly, the disabled, the mentally challenged, and those who are deemed not valuable enough to society to treat medically?

            Your determined ignorance on this is dangerous. This is the party that believes that the earth would be much better off without mankind to screw it up.

          • justinian

            I don’t think you get how rationing works.

            The plan does not EXPLICITLY ration health care.

            Healthcare is rationed as a result of side-effects of the plan.

            Obama is able to deflect this precisely because there is no EXPLICIT rationing.

            This example is why you need to know HOW and WHY health care is rationed. Because otherwise, the other side can simply say, “We don’t ration care!”, and they will win the debate.

            Please look above; I provide a narrative of how rationing works.

            The distinction between explicit and implicit is really important for this debate.

          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            folks that are convinced that there are enough RICH FOLKS that can just be taxed more and more as the whole basis for any/all Liberal schemes?!?!? People that choose to live in Denial that they won’t be paying more and receiving less – despite all the Facts known to date.

            But I wish you luck in getting through to some of them in breaking down how it isn’t possible with your approach. Others of us think we have to break though their thick-skulls some other method in order to even begin to introduce logic, reason, economics, etc…

          • justinian

            If you’re not using logic and reason, what then?

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            Admit you were wrong to call his comment crazy.

            Move on.

            You’re trolling at this point.

          • justinian

            Seriously.

            You don’t even answer any of my points. I spent a lot of time writing and responding, and you just call me a liar. Who’s the troll, troll?

            It’s a crazy claim. And it sounds crazy to the people we need to convince. That’s the point.

            Where is your proof? Again, I spent time with analysis. You just trolled for two hours.

          • mschmitt
          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            Shouldn’t have lied, kid.

            One minute you’re being helpful and telling us what’s “counterproductive,” the next you’re disagreeing with the content.

            Couldn’t make up your mind because you weren’t being honest. That much is clear.

            Troll.

          • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

            You spoiled my fun, :-(

            I had him telling me to learn to read and all sortss of things trying to defend his mobyness.

          • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

            Sorry for all the typos. The comment box is cut off on the right and I don’t see them until they’re posted.

          • mschmitt
          • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

            When I make a long post, I just go to the bottom for a new comment and then paste it in where I’m replying. For the short ones that’s too much trouble.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            We have too many trolls for any of us to play around with them anymore.

            Ignore them, shun them, ban them. That’s what we need.

          • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

            It seems to happen every time the liberals start feeling the heat from some of their stupidities.

          • Aaron Gardner
          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            Watch the latest business video at FOXBusiness.com

            You cannot reason with the unreasonable… you must reach them by their own Emotional knee-jerk basis…. Horowitz, the former full-on-Lefty loon, as do most people, know that people have to come to their own epiphany – you can deluge them with facts as much you like but until you hit them with the kernel that can manage to get past their automated response system of Denial – sound in, pick key-word, spout Democrat Talking Point out…. Horowitz says to use the strategies they have used as it is what they understand. Once past their Training, if you get just one minor point in/through (goes back to my whole oddball analogies and quotes (see sigline), they may get that human desire to want to finally know/seek the truth – then, and only then, can they be reached with logic and reason.

            I mentioned the Greater Good (above, with link) — they have had all these things Indoctrinated into them from a WARPED perspective. When we can go at them in/from their own basis’ of thought (or, lack thereof) is when we best stand a chance to open a mind or two. But, that is just IMNSHO.

            Every person has to be managed differently, in the manner most effective to getting through to them. Simple concept, sometimes your method works (but with Liberals we contend, most often than not) sometimes another approach is needed.

            Sorry you don’t see how Abortion (acceptable killing for Democrats) doesn’t relate in whether or not they are going to care how many more might die under Obamaocare. It is only when you can PERSONALIZE it to “it might be YOU* that dies” (* you – as in them personally as a Liberal, their immediate family members, etc….) that it will finally have any bearing and start to matter to them.

            I’m not trying to tell you how to approach Liberals, all angles are worthy to try, some of us just are “unsure” why you mind other approaches!?!?

          • justinian

            I think arguing that Dems INTEND to kill people will turn potential allies off.

            I think it is advisable to argue WHY the bills will kill people. The difference is certainly subtle when stated, but the effects of the two are very different.

          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            as the foxnews Beck site muddled the embed code ….

            CITIZEN ACTIVISM: (Horowitz is about 1:35 in)

            If you want to see it at/from fox click here

            as for our Ghost friend, he is hung up on intent while making our same argument it is EFFECTIVE EQUIVALENCE* (regardless of their intent) that their policies will result in more death. NO-ONE is saying Democrats got together and said (though, some are on record with Over-population statements) how can we kill off old folks?!?!? It is that they are TOO STUPID to ask the question of whether their policies would have that consequence that is at issue!!!

            *Effective Equivalence – discussed in HC debate diary.

          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            kill people and they don?t particularly care which ones die as long as it?s not one of them.

            and that is a major sub-point of this — making it PERSONALIZED to the masses and especially WOMEN with this whole Mammography fiasco!!!! It was Blanche and Mary that put the latest vote over the top DESPITE the current discussions of how this will be HARMFUL TO WOMEN and they must be called onto the carpet for it by ALL women!!!! Horowitz’s point and call for DIE-IN sessions across the US is absolutely the right strategy, IMO, at pointing out how the Democrats plans (INTENDED OR NOT) are going to put more women at risk!

            ARE YOU WOMEN GOING TO STAND FOR THIS OR HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE?!?!?

            Our, now Ghost, friend seems to want to hang the sole discussion on Economics (and again, his point would have merit IF we were dealing with reasonable folks). He ignores the fact that the Liberals are still convinced this is all going to be Deficit POSITIVE (potentially) and that SOAKING THE RICH is going to make that so!!!! You can’t argue on ECONOMIC GROUNDS with Politically Brain-dead folks that buy into the Democrat LIES – you have to reach them some other way!

            Whether someones Mother, Sister, Daughter, Niece, Friend, Neighbor, MAY DIE FAR TOO EARLY DUE TO CANCER because of Liberals refusal to recognize the Rationing problems of their TAKEOVER makes it more “personal” and the argument more effective! THEN, when they finally have eyes and ears open and willing to discuss LOGICALLY, we can then explain how the Economics of it FAIL!!!!

          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            justinian’s point and simple (so Liberals can even understand) counter-point

            You say that Democrats are TRYING to kill people; you say the Democrats? goals are death and destruction. You provide NO evidence for these claims.

            While some words may be “over-the-top” for you – we are saying THEIR PLANS ARE — Effective Equivalence (more) — going to result in. Whether they intend to or not, which you are hung up on, belittles the point that THEY WILL. Study of such Socialized Medicine anywhere in the World, and its failings, demostrates such and their refusal to recognize the consequenes of the actions they are looking to undertake – pretty much makes it premeditated ignorance!

            On the other hand, my argument does not depend on proving anyone?s intent. I say the foundations of economics and history (empirical evidence) are more likely to convince people to take a stand against Obamacare than making ABSURD claims about the Democrats? intent to kill folks.

            You intend to try and talk “reason” to solely EMOTIONAL based voters. Those are the ones we are dealing with now. The “logical” folk have already been easily won over to the Anti-Obamaocare side with “logic” and the economic evidence. You may as well be trying to speak Martian to a Lunatic…. wait, that’s backward as you’re the Lunatic in this example ;-) lol (sorry, cheap shot, I know, meant in good fun!)

            I say the Democrats are pursing terrible legislation (which I also believe is unconstitutional). This argument does not depend on knowing the secret desires and whims of Harry Reid or anyone else. I?m not calling Democrats good or bad; I?m attacking their legislation, not them.

            On the other hand, your argument depends entirely on the morals and intents of Democrats, which will not convince reasonable people (reasonable people are people who use reason, just to spell that out).

            Absolutely not – our argument is based on THEIR OWN WORDS — THEIR PLANS — HR3200 (details
            more details
            ), HR3962 – more of the same, – Read the Reid plan here — It is about what WILL happen regardless of their “intents” it is all in how some (in DENIAL) can be reached. TACTICS!

            Just because I say that your claims are unfounded, it does not follow that I am defending the Democrats. I?m saying your argument is counterproductive, not that Nancy Pelosi is a nice person.

            So you’ve made your point — but your poor word-choice and tone by calling my suggested technique “crazy” first rather than unproductive which made your postings less productive. We are NOT insisting you use our strategy/method and we sure aren’t (obviously) going to let you persuade us. Don’t like the strategy, don’t use it. If you would have STOPPED at pointing out your “non-productive” opinion you would have been fine – but you had to march off the-cliff to the point of being blam-sticked!

            There are some arguments I’ve learned to just give up on and if folks manage to help get Democrats elected as a consequence of their tactics, we’ll have those examinations to make after the election and we’ll all see who had called the wrong strategy. Sounds like justinian wants to repeat the McCainiac mistakes and play within the bounds already proven to be a failure. Some of us like to think people would learn from mistakes.

    • Scope

      today, and recently, that he is going to push for a third party. I was sick. A week or so ago, when Napolitano was filling in asked the question, are we ready for a third party? Saw a clip of Beck at his Villages event where he said, if the 2 party system is destroyed, so be it. More than disturbing.

      • joayn

        for quite a while now. I stopped watching his show when he said all Republicans were just as bad as Democrats. I had a danger Will Robinson moment … uh-oh, third party talk. He and Napolitano are Libertarian, not Independent.

      • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

        he does state at the beginning… and you can see his comments as part of the DIE IN discussion/video above…. “two can play at that game” in referring to infiltrating and infesting BOTH PARTIES (as part of the Progressives long term strategy). Remember, it takes context, and his “we surround them” lines make that context that he first wants ACTIVISM to take the Parties (at least the GOP) back into true CONSERVATIVE hands. But peeps will believe what they like…. FAILING THAT, he is clear that he would entertain Third Party, but that is NOT his current strategy.

  • jeffreywturner

    I believe Lieberman when he says he won’t support it with the public option in it.

    So, they will change it however they need to in order to get him, or Snowe / Collins to support it in order to advance it.

    My question for you is, once they have changed the wording of the bill such that Lieberman and / or others are satisfied that it is not equivalent to the public option, and all that is left is to get the left-wing senators like Sanders, etc. to support cloture – do you really think the liberals are going to help Republicans kill the entire bill, the centerpiece of Obama’s agenda, just because it doesn’t contain a “public option” in so many words?

    Same thing in the House – do you really think the liberals are going to help kill the final bill if it includes Stupak?

    In reality, these liberals are just posturing to get the most liberal bill they can right? I mean, they are going to vote for whatever can pass at the end of the day right?

    • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

      That is what it will be and the MSM spin machine will go into over-drive to state it is anything but. This will be full on Russian Roulette with all chambers loaded, and for those who refuse to pull the trigger (or think you can wrestle them away from pulling the trigger) there are Liberals in the weeds ready to detonate an IED to ensure the place lights up!!!!

      For anyone offended by analogy – the Liberals are in a full-out War to “fundamentally change” America — how many times do you need to hear that from their own mouths before you believe it!?!?!?

  • Dan Perrin

    part that I have the biggest problem with — they need 60 votes just to get to vote on any change they try to make.

    Then, what are they going to change the wording to?

    Yes, I think there are some liberals who will stand on principle over the public option, because their view is the bill has slowly and slowly gotten watered down to where they think it is worse than nothing.

    Getting things done in the Senate is much different than the House, and the Republicans not allowing changes to the immigration bill is how it died. BTW, I guess you have seen the front page of Drudge.

    • jeffreywturner

      I just have a hard time believing that any of the real hardcore liberals are going to help kill a bill that raises taxes and increases government spending on social programs.

      Then again, I hope you are right.

  • Dan Perrin

    “Sen. Joseph Lieberman, speaking in that trademark sonorous baritone, utters a simple statement that translates into real trouble for Democratic leaders: “I’m going to be stubborn on this.”

    Stubborn, he means, in opposing any health-care overhaul that includes a “public option,” or government-run health-insurance plan, as the current bill does. His opposition is strong enough that Mr. Lieberman says he won’t vote to let a bill come to a final vote if a public option is included.

    Probe for a catch or caveat in that opposition, and none is visible. Can he support a public option if states could opt out of the plan, as the current bill provides? “The answer is no,” he says in an interview from his Senate office. “I feel very strongly about this.” How about a trigger, a mechanism for including a public option along with a provision saying it won’t be used unless private insurance plans aren’t spreading coverage far and fast enough? No again.”

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125900412679261049.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

    • joayn

      He says he’s very concerned with the price tag of this thing, which he is right to worry about.

      Thanks for offering some hope, Dan. I read the WSJ before coming to RedState and didn’t take Lieberman’s remarks seriously at all. But after reading your article, I’ll let a teeny bit of hope lurk in the back of my mind. And it will make me work all the harder to defeat Obamacare and the Dems in 2010.

      • aesthete

        as far as politicians go, anyways. He’s built up his own little independent kingdom in CT, and given his consistency with his other controversial positions, I’d say that he’s pretty safe.

        Snowe I’m more worried about, but I think we’ll hold on to her barring something new popping up. Right now, I’m cautiously optimistic about our chances.

      • Dan Perrin

        backing down.

        He has been warning about his vote for months.

        Why tell everyone months in advance but for the fact that you do intend to do what you said you’d do.

  • Ausonius

    From the Wall Street Journal:

    “Yet he still thinks that, somehow, health legislation will get done, probably not by Christmas but early next year. “At the end of the day,” he says, “I feel strongly health-care reform will pass the Senate and the Congress.”

    See:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125900412679261049.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

    • redneck_hippie

      They could also mean that he strongly believes the public option will be pulled so that he can vote for it.

      If we force the vote on the bill as is, I don’t see how he could be right in that quote about passing.

    • Mayhem

      that he thinks they’ll get Snowe and Collins somehow, while he votes no.

    • Dan Perrin

      Lieberman is not saying he will cave, he is thinking the liberals will cave, perhaps, it will get taken out.

      But the left is not going to cave.

      The bill will die.

      • bk

        Sanders can say he won’t vote for it if it’s not sufficiently socialist, but will he really do that? The Dems love to set up slippery slopes, and that’s what they will think of this bill as. Pass it now and fix the stuff they don’t like later.

        On the other hand, other than House speaker the egos in the Senate are all waaaay bigger than in the House. A single Senator can be recalcitrant and make a difference whereas in the House Stupak was only able to get his way because he had another 25 or so that stood with him.

        • Dan Perrin

          made that the supporters begin to resent what the bill has become, the left is getting uncomfortable and as their provisions change taking out the public option will be the last straw.

          It is not public option or not, per se, it is entire bill with public option or without, and no one knows what the bill will be.

          In a nutshell, the Dems are winging it.

  • Durangodarlin

    I would love to share your optimism about Obamacare, but the Democrats have the majority in the Senate. They will pass this behemoth by hook or crook. If the Republicans take back control of either side of Congress in 2010, the bill will be difficult to repeal, PR wise.

    • Dan Perrin

      the question is how?

      • bk

        1. Do whatever it takes to get Nelson to vote for cloture. That gets Landrieu and Lincoln on board and gives 59 Dems.

        2a. Do whatever it takes to get Lieberman on board
           –or if not–
        2b. Do whatever it takes to get Snowe on board.
           –or if not–
        2c. Convince Lieberman to vote for cloture but against the bill.

        The first one will probably be easier than the second one. I strongly doubt Snowe would do 2c and I doubt Lieberman would, so I think it comes down to getting Lieberman or Snowe to support the final bill outright.

        The Senate is much tougher to control than the House. In the House, Pelosi could control exactly which amendments made it to the floor and only allowed Stupak a vote because that was the only way for it to pass. Reid can’t exercise that level of control in the Senate. Any of these moderates will be able to offer amendments, and the left takes a big chance if they kill any of them.

        The only drama in the House was over Stupak, because it was a given (to me) that it was going to pass. It is much tougher to say it’s a given that it will pass the Senate.

        • Dan Perrin

          n/t

          • bk

            All of them will be tough sells.

  • clowngirl

    I think the Democrats so far have been proceeding on the idea that polling will somehow get a little bit better. They may have convinced themselves that if people see things moving forward they’ll start to see the bill as inevitable and resign to it – or Obama would be able to make some speeches and turn things around. or something…

    It’s not happening. Rasmussen has support for Obamacare at 38% – a new low. Opposition is back to 56% with 43% strongly opposed. There’s got to be some point where public backlash reaches critical mass and there will just be no way for the Democrats to save face. If 60% of the public opposes the bill and only 35% support it I just don’t see them passing this bill. They got away with an extremely unpopular TARP bill but only because there was a belief that something had to be done immediately -there’s no such urgency for a program that won’t take effect til 2013.

    It will get to the point where the abuse of power is so blatant it just can’t be gotten away with- besides that the Obama administration is infuriating Americans by trying the terrorists who planned 9/11 in New York City – while they are openly stating their intentions of using the trial as a propaganda opportunity. This is anecdotal – but the fury among my Facebook friends has reached a new height.

    Rasmussen has Obama’s approval rating at only 46%a with an approval index of -13 (negative double digits for 9 days running) if his numbers fall much lower, moderates won’t have much negative consequence for opposing him.

    • SteveLA
      • Dan Perrin

        care about spending $2.4 trillion and the so-called moderates like Lincoln, Landrieu and Nelson will just roll over and play dead.

        The Democrats are not listening and they will not listen and have not been listening.

        The only thing they are teaching the American public is that under no circumstances should you trust us or vote for us no matter what we say about the deficit or taxes.

  • justinian

    Dan, you continue to suggest that we have the upper hand with regard to healthcare, but they have the majority, and lest you already forget, they got the votes to start debate.

    None of the senators you mention are opposed to the plan itself, just pieces of it.

    People called this bill dead on arrival. Well, it arrived, and it’s kicking. You were wrong then, why should we believe you now?

    • Dan Perrin

      I am just telling you what I believe and why I believe it, and am pointing out, in these comments, responses to other points raised like yours.

      And you should read the politico piece and the Huffington post piece and the WSJ piece and Lowry’s piece all linked to in the blog above and make up your own mind.

  • nateleyswhore

    We are literally holding up Western Civilization until 2010 elections can take the teeth out of this Socialist steamroller. Hold fast, and communicate, Conservatives. The calls to Congress and the Tea Parties are having an enormous effect!

    • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

      Gross comment title. Between that and your screen name, you’re going to make RedState NSFW.

      Or were you blind to an egregious spelling error?

    • http://www.redstate.com/tnjim TNJim

      Civil_truth didn’t call for it, but I will.

    • nateleyswhore

      It was late…but yes I am in error…”dikes”…kinda funny when you think about the context and the fact that the irony was totally lost on me.

      And my NIC is actually a character in Joseph Heller’s “Catch 22″ but I can see where somebody might not get it.

  • jsbrodhead

    The demos are just volunteering to build the “gallows” and are working like mad, to gold-plate it….

    It’s almost reassuring, that they are sooooo party-agenda oriented, they cannot see the stoooopidity of their actions. Their actions are going to backfire into their faces.

    • Dan Perrin

      been blinded and they cannot stop themselves, all lead by the President — into the most well known political ever — by they keep riding.

      • Dan Perrin

        been blinded and they cannot stop themselves, all lead by the President ? into the most well known political ambushes ever ? but they keep riding.

  • dclamage

    There is much more about this bill that is horribly anti-competitive. You should be highlighting many of its provisions that will cause us to have fewer choices. Not just the Death Panel and Public Option items.

    Ask a Liberal to give you 5 reasons in favor of the Public Option; then shoot them all down.

    This bill micro-manages health insurers. The reporting requirements are draconian and will cost them more money to produce. No other industry is to be as heavily regulated as this one. Yet!

    • Dan Perrin

      it is just that I believe only the politics will kill this bill.

  • Hera

    The beauty of the dems controlling all of government including having a filibuster proof majority is that they have no where to hide.They can try to blame the GOP but the reality is that the dems should be able to pass anything they want with no GOP votes. The dems will also have to take responsibility and blame for any legislation they pass rather then hiding behind the skirts of whatever Republican is President.They passed the failed “stimulus” which has resulted in 10.2% unemployment and climbing. Cap and trade with higher energy bills for consumer, that’s dem legislation. Phoney health care with higher premiums, higher taxes and lower quality. If passed its courtesy of the dhimmirat party.

  • harleygirl

    It is depressing though, when you spend hours faxing them and they proceed to vote for it anyway and the senator in Colorado says he will vote for it – he’s losing anyway. It’s also depressing when you have to depend on 4 or 5 so-called “moderates”. Out of 60 dems, only 4 or 5 are “moderates”???

    There’s something seriously wrong with this when senators aren’t afraid of their constituents.

    I see the list of all the bad things in the bill, like abortion-funding, however, I’ve only seen a couple of people complaining about the illegal immigrant coverage in the billl. Is it just that abortion-funding is the ‘issue of the day’ right now?

  • jbopinionated

    if I understand correctly the way the filibuster process works, and maybe someone already stated this in all the posts above, the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster are what occurred Saturday, Nov. 21. Now Reid only needs a simple majority of 51.

    If I am mistaken, please let me know, I’d like to have hope again for the bill’s defeat.

    • Richard Mullins

      and the Democratic caucus was on board with that. They haven’t even brought up the health care bill, just the ancillary part dealing with taxes.

    • Dan Perrin

      pls read the entire post, especially Lieberman’s quote about the Senate process.

      • Richard Mullins

        and not the bill itself. That’s not much to worry about at this point and I’m sure they agreed as a caucus to vote yea on this. I ready for Part 2.

      • jbopinionated

        just not everyones comments. That said, check this out:

        http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3590:

        I think this is why the news orgs and other political sites are reporting that cloture to proceed to debate on the health care bill was passed. It looks like Reid pulled a fast one and slipped the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Amendment in Senate)” in as the fourth and final version of the bill for the cloture vote.

        Again, I hope I’m misunderstanding, but this still doesn’t look to me like they need 60 votes anymore.

  • olddog

    will still be there, when we kick them out, many will just become lobbyists, encouraging the same ole horses__t. we need a newly elected Congress to pass a bill, that would deny them, The newly unemployed from becoming, lobbyists, for at least two election cycles. and an afterthought,
    Major Democrats refer to the democratic agenda, while conservatives want to preserve America as our founders envisioned. smaller government , more personal freedoms, fiscal responsibility, etc.
    Be responsible for yourself,
    Support our troops,
    because they are the political football in the D.C. Game.

    One Old Dog