As its first major act, the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives voted today on a bill promising the complete repeal of Obamacare. The bill passed with a unanimous Republican vote along with the support of 3 House Democrats, proving that the demand to repeal Obamacare is a real, bipartisan fight that will lead to a serious debate in the Senate.
While many have tried to downplay the vote as merely symbolic, it is far more important than that: repeal is real. I believe that repeal is achievable, and in fact likely, because the American people want and expect it. The new class of Republicans campaigned on repeal in this election, and we intend to hold each and every one of them accountable to their own promises.
From here, we need to keep in mind that while this is the first giant step in the right direction, this fight is far from over. From here we must continue to build momentum and push Harry Reid to bring it to a vote in the Senate. Ultimately, we will push forward until this is on the desk of President Obama.
This is unprecedented and historic. For the first time ever, a house of Congress has voted on a bipartisan basis to repeal a major social welfare entitlement program. It’s also a huge victory for the tea party movement and the Contract From America. This vote would never have happened without the tea party. This victory creates huge momentum for repeal.
You can help us take this fight to the next level. First, be sure to thank your representative if he voted Yes on the repeal bill. This is how we keep them on the right track. If your Representative voted the wrong way, let him know (in a polite way, devoid of “violent rhetoric”) of your disappointment with his vote.
From here, the ball is now in the Senate’s court. Call and write your Senators, and tell them you want Majority Leader Harry Reid to schedule a debate and vote on the House-passed repeal bill as soon as possible.
For further commentary, listen to FreedomWorks VP of Public Policy Dean Clancy’s response to today’s proceedings, and where we can go from here.
Matt Kibbe is the President and CEO of FreedomWorks in Washington, DC.
Moe Lane
Dan McLaughlin
Dan Spencer
Jeff Emanuel
Neil Stevens
It's a Bad Sign That Only 3 House Dems Voted for Repeal
IJB Wednesday, January 19th at 6:14PM EDT (link)I thought we’d get at least 250 ‘Yes’ votes – we only got 245.
What that tells me is that, for good or ill, the modern Democrat Party has decided to tie their fates to this law. (It’s also tells me that there will be no more than 1 Senate Dem willing to vote for Repeal, no matter what…)
IOW, they are going to go to the *mat* to defend this, regardless of the consequences.
If we’re going to repeal this, it will be completely without the help of any Democrats nationally.
Did you see the count for "no vote?" nt
redneck_hippie (Diary) Wednesday, January 19th at 6:21PM EDT (link)189 No's
IJB Wednesday, January 19th at 6:36PM EDT (link)So that would be 3 Dem ‘No’s', and 1 non-vote(?).
Yes, I saw an earlier total before all voted. nt
redneck_hippie (Diary) Wednesday, January 19th at 6:38PM EDT (link)The Three D 'No' Votes Were Pretty Much As Expected
IJB Wednesday, January 19th at 6:44PM EDT (link)The Dem ‘No’ votes were:
Dan Boren, D-Okla.
Mike Ross, D-Ark.
Mike McIntyre, D-N.C.
the three D’s from pretty much *the* most GOP districts in the country (not including Mattheson of UT – his district now needs to be targeted for elimination in redistricting…).
The one non-vote was Giffords of AZ, of course.
The Blue Dog Caucus
Tbone (Diary) Wednesday, January 19th at 6:59PM EDT (link)seems a tad short on membership.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
They were voted out or moved.
concap (Diary) Wednesday, January 19th at 7:16PM EDT (link)Most of the political spectrum is moving right of center.
The left-right wing has become saturated with blue dog and other moderate Democrats’ mixing in with the Social Conservatives of the right. Forced to the right by the on slot of the hard left. Thus the reason for the decline of people calling themselves Democrats.
The Tea party is made up of the increasing Independents‘, most of which are made up of Fiscal Conservatives splitting from the Social Conservatives and moving farther right.
The split will result in either a three party system made up of the Constitutional Capitalist Party (fiscal right), Social Republican Party (the old Democratic Party) and the Socialist Party left of center.
Or.
It will result in a two party system made of the Constitutional Capitalist Party (fiscal right), and the New Democratic Party (old R Social Conservatives and moderate Democrats)on the left, with the hard core Socialist Party pushed out all together.
The Constitution is neither Right or Left, it is American.
You need neither be Right or Left to vote American.
When you vote on the Federal level based on politics, you are voting for a lobbyist to promote your own personal wants and force them on others through taxation and legislation.
FF/FS/SL/RMIL/OK
Fiscal Federal/Fiscal State/Social Local/Retired Military/Oath Keeper
Their Membership Chair should be able to make good use
Tbone (Diary) Wednesday, January 19th at 7:42PM EDT (link)of your analysis.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
One Point
edintexas Thursday, January 20th at 10:51AM EDT (link)Unless I didn’t understand the ‘left-right wing” terminology, you claim that the Social Conservatives are the left side of the right and the new home of those Democrats forced somewhat to the right by the Far Left takeover of the Democrat party. You then claim that the Fiscal Conservatives are splitting from the Social Conservatives and thus moving further to the Right.
As a generalization, the Fiscal Right is often the home of those who don’t object to social programs, only the cost of the social programs. These people are not Conservatives, at best they are conservatives. I used to call these people “cheap Liberals”. Some of those who are not also Social Conservatives often have no problem with the nanny state, as long as it doesn’t cost too much. Obviously there are exceptions.
I think it is difficult to find many Social Conservatives who are not on the Fiscal Right, but there are some claiming to be Fiscal Conservatives who only pretend to be fiscally conservative.
You are correct that there are many social issues. I could be in error, but I believe you are mistaken in believing that the Social Conservative is on the Left of the Fiscal. Personally, I’d claim to be a Constitutional Conservative. If you can give me an example of a number of Social Conservatives who are really big tax and spenders (other than a former Governor of AR, I already know about him) to support your contention, I’d appreciate it.
You Already Made My Point
edintexas Thursday, January 20th at 11:06AM EDT (link)Just read your extensive bio post. From that:
“Many have read a version of the following statement from ‘moderates,’ defined here as people who want to seem high-minded and objective by staying ‘above the fray.’
‘I’m a fiscal conservative, but a social liberal.’ ”
As I said, you made my point. I’m not sure why, in your bio, you decided to try and depict Conservatism as a totally splintered movement. Like many things, your list taken from the usually Liberal Wikipedia isn’t untrue, but many of those pointing it out have, as an objective, the further splitting of the alliance. I don’t believe that is the case with you.
A Final Point
edintexas Thursday, January 20th at 12:38PM EDT (link)Missed this the first time around. You wrote: “(yes, the 100% fiscally conservative people have social issues to, but elect not to place the burden on the government or it‘s people) ”
That statement, in an item about Social and Fiscal Conservatives, makes it seem that you are assigning Social Conservatives with what the Left considers “social issues”. I can’t find a “…burden on government or it’s people” * in favoring removing abortion from the purview of the Federal government and returning it to the jurisdiction of each state (OK, it will cost something for each state to consider and pass a new statute – if they wish to have a different statute than the one possibly unenforced and still on the books from before Roe). I can’t find a burden in opposing the removal of any and all possibly religious symbols and references from any public property – no matter how long the item has existed, nor how remote from public view the item might be (e.g. the cross erected in the desert, by the VFW, in 1934 to commemorate the WWI dead). The pro-2d Amendment issue is a Social and political issue, not fiscal. Etc., Etc.
There is a heavy burden placed on taxpayers in funding “social issues” such as a national healthcare system, welfare payments ad infinitum (i.e. without a requirement to find work or be terminated anyway), unending unemployment benefits, turning the Federal Income Tax system into a real payment transfer system by giving “tax refunds” to people who pay no tax, etc., etc. But, of course, these are not issues of Social Conservatives.
* I know you wrote the possessive “it’s”, which would mean the people belonging to the government. I believe you really intended to refer to the citizens and taxpayers.
I think
concap (Diary) Thursday, January 20th at 2:22PM EDT (link)You kind of proved my point.
When Conservatives talk 100% fiscal, they are in 100% agreement.
When they shift the conversation to there own personal social issue concerns (non of which are the same) most of the time it will end in a disagreement.
That’s why I only talk fiscal and keep my personal social issues to myself.
My goal is to convince the fiscal/socials that being 100% fiscal first will
Take care of most if not all of their social concerns, then rally them all under the same flag.
The Constitution is neither Right or Left, it is American.
You need neither be Right or Left to vote American.
When you vote on the Federal level based on politics, you are voting for a lobbyist to promote your own personal wants and force them on others through taxation and legislation.
FF/FS/SL/RMIL/OK
Fiscal Federal/Fiscal State/Social Local/Retired Military/Oath Keeper
Changed profile to reflect the citizens and taxpayers. nt
concap (Diary) Thursday, January 20th at 3:31PM EDT (link)The Constitution is neither Right or Left, it is American.
You need neither be Right or Left to vote American.
When you vote on the Federal level based on politics, you are voting for a lobbyist to promote your own personal wants and force them on others through taxation and legislation.
FF/FS/SL/RMIL/OK
Fiscal Federal/Fiscal State/Social Local/Retired Military/Oath Keeper
I guess I misunderstood
edintexas Friday, January 21st at 9:16AM EDT (link)I thought a good part of your point was that Social Conservatives were the Left side of the Conservative movement and Fiscal Conservatives were to the Right of, and more Conservative than, Social Conservatives. I didn’t spend much, if any, time on your commentary about Social Conservatives agreeing, etc. (frankly, I don’t know of any group of people who agree on anything 100%, not even Fiscal Conservatives all agree when it comes to details of where to cut and how much). So I don’t believe I proved, for you, what I addressed as a primary point (Social Conservatives are to the Left of Fiscal Conservatives), but if you insist I’ll agree to agreeably disagree.
Hi, edintexas
concap (Diary) Thursday, January 20th at 7:10PM EDT (link)Fusionism saw its height during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, who had brought together the divided factions after Gerald Ford’s loss in the 1976 election. Rich Lowry has argued that Reagan maintained a fusionist ‘sweet spot’ of both ideological flexibility and respect for conservative principles.[1] In the immediate aftermath of the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, fusionism was also at its height.
When I say, the fiscons’ are splitting from the socons’ I mean splitting from when Reagan fused them in 1976.
Fusionist impulses declined during the presidency of George W. Bush.[citation needed] The social conservative element of the Republican Party was seen on the ” ascent” (at least with respect to domestic politics),
leading to increased domestic spending on “moral” issues that “angered” fiscal conservatives and libertarians…….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusionism_(politics)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
You asked:
If you can give me an example of a number of Social Conservatives who are really big tax and spenders (other than a former Governor of AR, I already know about him) to support your contention, I’d appreciate it.
Unless I’m misunderstanding, are you looking for this?
He was more spend and lower tax, not raise.
This is from,
I blame Bush thread.
http://www.redstate.com/scipio62/2011/01/16/i-blame-bush/#comment-673
Bush?
concap Monday, January 17th at 5:39PM EST (link)
What is your personal definition of a Socialist?
Is it someone who is a true believer and follower in the ideal of socialism?
Is it only someone who places his/her own beliefs of social issues as paramount?
I say No. He was not a Socialist.
He, like most of the people who voted for him, is a Fiscal/Social Conservative who’s own Social issue concerns took presidents over his need to be fiscal? (non spending)
(even though he did lower taxes. When you lower taxes, you must all so lower spending, he did not)
During his eight years in office, President Bush oversaw a large increase in government spending. In fact, President Bush increased government spending more than any of the six presidents preceding him, including LBJ. In his last term in office, President Bush increased discretionary outlays by an estimated 48.6 percent.
During his eight years in office, President Bush spent almost twice as much as his predecessor, President Clinton. Adjusted for inflation, in eight years, President Clinton increased the federal budget by 11 percent. In eight years, President Bush increased it by a whopping 104 percent.
http://mercatus.org/publication/spending-under-president-george-w-bush
You must ask why, and was it justified? Then you will have your answer.
Is Bush a socialist? He’s spending like one
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article570387.ece
George Bush Becomes a Socialist
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/george-bush-becomes-a-soc_b_127006.html
George Bush, Secret Socialist
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-curry/george-bush-secret-social_b_67943.html
George Bush’s Move to the Left
And How Clinton Shifted the Center of American Politics.
http://www.scholarscorner.com/didache/socialism.htm
Hugo Chavez celebrates ‘comrade’ George W Bush’s conversion to socialism following financial crisis
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/3207978/Hugo-Chavez-celebrates-comrade-George-W-Bushs-conversion-to-socialism-following-financial-crisis.html
Barack Obama: George W. Bush is a socialist
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/9123157/Barack_Obama_George_W_Bush_is_a_socialist/
My point here is, we need to find someone who is 100% fiscal and the rest will fall into place.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Though not my man now, if Cain does not run, I may back Ryan, just because he made this statement.
Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan said during a June 2009 the Hudson Institute conference speech:
A “libertarian” who wants limited government should embrace the means to his freedom: thriving mediating institutions that create the moral preconditions for economic markets and choice.
A “social issues” conservative with a zeal for righteousness should insist on a free market economy to supply the material needs for families, schools, and churches that inspire moral and spiritual life. In a nutshell, the notion of separating the social from the economic issues is a false choice. They stem from the same root.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusionism_(politics)
To me Capitalism is the same as the words: fiscal (non spending), economical, free market.
A “social issues” conservative with a zeal for righteousness should insist on a free market economy (Capitalism) to supply the material needs (money) for families, schools, and churches that inspire moral and spiritual life. In a nutshell, the notion of separating the social from the economic (fiscal or Capitalism) issues is a false choice. They stem from the same
root.[1]
That came from this:
Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be “ceaseless”, “uninterrupted”, and “unfailing”.
http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm
Putting 100% fiscal first, will make you 100% social because like he said, they stem from the same root.
He says, “Libertarian“, I say that is very vague and has to many meanings today.
Do you call yourself a Libertarian?
I fit this statement 100% and I do not call myself a Libertarian.
That is why I want a totally new name and flag. Something that encompasses this statement.
A flag for all who place being 100% fiscally responsible ahead of (not in place of) their personal social issue concerns to rally under.
I say, The Constitutional Capitalist Party. It’s “A” political straight to the point and non argumentative.
You are probably more mixed up now than when you started.
The Constitution is neither Right or Left, it is American.
You need neither be Right or Left to vote American.
When you vote on the Federal level based on politics, you are voting for a lobbyist to promote your own personal wants and force them on others through taxation and legislation.
FF/FS/SL/RMIL/OK
Fiscal Federal/Fiscal State/Social Local/Retired Military/Oath Keeper
You would have to do better
edintexas Friday, January 21st at 9:02AM EDT (link)Better than “Dubya”, who isn’t considered to be any sort of “Conservative” by most Conservatives here in TX. Running for Governor, he “Wasn’t Ma Richards” and was good on Concealed Carry. Running for President he “Wasn’t Algore (or Kerry)” and was good on the 2d Amendment. George HW was, and is, a Rockefeller Republican. George W didn’t fall far from that tree. IMO Rove is simply interested only in what is best for Karl Rove as a political advisor. Rove showed his true colors in the Delaware Republican Primary. All in all, this isn’t much of a recommendation for election to a mythical Conservative Hall of Fame.
Short on Testicular Fortitude
Superheater (Diary) Thursday, January 20th at 8:35AM EDT (link)Now you know why Heath Shuler isn’t Minority Leader and why his “candidacy” was as successful as his NFL career. When Cruella DePelosi says “rollover” and “play dead” all the blue dalmations will do it, and fast.
Blue Dogs are a made up species.
Short on Testicular Fortitude
Superheater (Diary) Thursday, January 20th at 8:35AM EDT (link)Now you know why Heath Shuler isn’t Minority Leader and why his “candidacy” was as successful as his NFL career. When Cruella DePelosi says “rollover” and “play dead” all the blue dalmations will do it, and fast.
Blue Dogs are a made up species.
189 No's. Remember Rep. Giffords? nt
pilgrim (Diary) Wednesday, January 19th at 10:12PM EDT (link)Maybe not.
msctex (Diary) Wednesday, January 19th at 6:21PM EDT (link)Just because they are holding their ground now does not mean when some time passes, the ’12 vote is closer and things have only grown worse, that there won’t likely be more than a few who realize the nature of the wagon to which they have hitched their horse. It’s one thing to sacrifice your career for a good cause. Quite another when it is an unmitigated, indefensible disaster from Day One.
Another way of looking at it is that loyalty to principle is not among their strong suits.
Next steps need to be to defund and demoralize
izoneguy (Diary) Wednesday, January 19th at 6:30PM EDT (link)ObamaCare now needs to be defunded & deconstructed.
The dems need to be embarassed, demoralized & humilated.
That is the “new tone” I want to spread.
Those who had once simpered: “I don’t want to destroy the rich, I only want to seize a little of their surplus to help the poor, just a little, they’ll never miss it!” – then, later, had snapped: “The tycoons can stand being squeezed; they’ve amassed enough to last them for three generations” – then, later, had yelled: “Why should the people suffer while businessmen have reserves to last a year?” – now were screaming: “Why should we starve while some people have reserves to last a week?” – Atlas Shrugged
I Think It's The Opposite - This Is Likely The 'High Point'...
IJB Wednesday, January 19th at 6:39PM EDT (link)…in terms of Dem support for Repeal: if they aren’t going to support repeal immediately after an election in which their party was slaughtered because of its *passage* of ObamaCare, they aren’t ever going to vote for Repeal. I suspect support for repeal among Dems just goes lower from here.
If anything, I’d bet there will be *no* Dem House votes for Repeal even just 6 months from now…
Possibly.
msctex (Diary) Wednesday, January 19th at 7:22PM EDT (link)And given the degree that it would insult the voters, that might be the best thing that could happen in the long run. We’ll just have to wait and see if self-interest can overcome what amounts to faith in a provably false idol. I’m still betting there will be a bit of both, but with the majority, as you think, still dumb enough to go down with the ship. To have scales fall from your eyes and see the world as it is, you have to have been able to see in the first place.
Only three Dem votes....?
NeoKong (Diary) Wednesday, January 19th at 6:28PM EDT (link)I knew it. That means that all the “Blue Dogs” who voted against it before lying through their teeth.
So what is their reasoning to not vote for repeal ?
I didn’t like it before when I was up for reelection but now that I have almost two years to change the subject I sort of like it. It grows on ya’.
Follow me on Twitter.
They are writing the 2012 election campaign spots
izoneguy (Diary) Wednesday, January 19th at 6:33PM EDT (link)As we see – ObamaCare is a national disaster.
Use the “No on repeal vote” against the dems just like we used the “Yes on ObamaCare” against in the 2010 elections.
Those who had once simpered: “I don’t want to destroy the rich, I only want to seize a little of their surplus to help the poor, just a little, they’ll never miss it!” – then, later, had snapped: “The tycoons can stand being squeezed; they’ve amassed enough to last them for three generations” – then, later, had yelled: “Why should the people suffer while businessmen have reserves to last a year?” – now were screaming: “Why should we starve while some people have reserves to last a week?” – Atlas Shrugged
Yep. 2012 will have to settle this.
carolina Wednesday, January 19th at 6:57PM EDT (link)The blue dogs that voted against obamacare…… but also voted against repeal today, will have some explaining to do.
The dem senators up for reelection will get to answer to obamacare also.
Today was a ‘promise kept’ by the House repubs. Now they can proceed with the REAL work of cutting spending.
How Many
edintexas Thursday, January 20th at 10:56AM EDT (link)How many of those who voted against passage then, are still in the House to vote against repeal today? I suspect the number of the former is much lower today (not that this is a bad thing, let’s make sure the Democrat party is shown for what it is).
Yep. 2012 will have to settle this.
carolina Wednesday, January 19th at 6:57PM EDT (link)The blue dogs that voted against obamacare…… but also voted against repeal today, will have some explaining to do.
The dem senators up for reelection will get to answer to obamacare also.
Today was a ‘promise kept’ by the House repubs. Now they can proceed with the REAL work of cutting spending.
Be thankful we can get
kenjames Wednesday, January 19th at 6:29PM EDT (link)245. A month ago we couldn’t.
Be thankful we can get
kenjames Wednesday, January 19th at 6:29PM EDT (link)245. A month ago we couldn’t.
Take A STAND, Harry, Lets vote on REPEAL!
WmCraig (Diary) Wednesday, January 19th at 6:34PM EDT (link)Hiding behind procedures is a form of cowardice.
If you believe in health care, if you believe that people will support it, if you believ that
The Sen. Reps. should force a vote even
renny (Diary) Wednesday, January 19th at 6:38PM EDT (link)if it is defeated. We need to have Harry and His Henchmen on record.
It matters nothing if it is defeated
chamberD Thursday, January 20th at 1:32AM EDT (link)We demand that Obamacare be consigned to the dustbin of history. If it takes 100 such votes, it matters not at all. Nothing gets done in Washington UNTIL IT IS REPEALED.
End of story.
I’m not smart enough to click links before I tell people to do research.
As of June 22, 2011 there have been a total 68 VAERS reports of death among those who have received Gardasil® . There were 54 reports among females, 3 were among males, and 11 were reports of unknown gender. Thirty two of the total death reports have been confirmed and 36 remain unconfirmed due to no identifiable patient information in the report such as a name and contact information to confirm the report. A death report is confirmed (verified) after a medical doctor reviews the report and any associated records. In the 32 reports confirmed, there was no unusual pattern or clustering to the deaths that would suggest that they were caused by the vaccine and some reports indicated a cause of death unrelated to vaccination.
Take A STAND, Harry, bring REPEAL to a VOTE!
WmCraig (Diary) Wednesday, January 19th at 6:38PM EDT (link)Hiding behind procedures is a form of cowardice.
If you believe in ObamaCare, if you believe that people will support it when they know about it, BRING IT TO A VOTE, HARRY!
Of course if you know that it is all lies, and the American people will not stand for Senators who vote for the bill, just hide it in committee.
We can wait to remove you.
Anyone have a bumper sticker business.
BRING IT TO A VOTE, HARRY!
just might be the motto of the year.
He isn’t likely to cooperate much with Congress, and you know where they stand.
Amen and pass the sugar fried peas.NT
bobojake (Diary) Wednesday, January 19th at 6:44PM EDT (link)Reality is,
PowerToThePeople (Diary) Wednesday, January 19th at 7:04PM EDT (link)this will do little to end Obamacare, but that is OK. It is the start we need and it allows the country to take note of who votes how.
Even if it slips through Congress, Obama will veto it and we would not have enough votes to end the veto. But what this allows us to do not is show our resolve and gets the members ready to end funding. I have always thought that stopping funding would be the answer to the problem and a temporary fix until we can take back the presidency and a majority in both houses. That will happen in 2012 and then we can once again repeal the law. Until then, stop all funding for all the programs and that will cause the whole thing to wither up until we can cut the thing off the branch.
Correction
PowerToThePeople (Diary) Wednesday, January 19th at 7:05PM EDT (link)But what this allows us to do not is show our resolve and gets the members ready to end funding
Should be “do now” instead of “do not” Minor error but changes the whole message.
Even more important: serious progress on reducing the budget
carolina Wednesday, January 19th at 7:15PM EDT (link)House Republicans are planning to hold a vote on January 25 on a resolution allowing House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to reduce certain spending levels to 2008 levels or less for the remainder of FY 2011, without the need for a full House vote.
The House Rules Committee this afternoon approved an amended H.Res 38, which instructs the Budget Committee to allocate funds for non-security discretionary spending for remainder of FY 2011 at 2008 levels or less.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/138865-republicans-indicate-budget-vote-planned-for-tuesday
I applaud them for taking the first step to
runner12 (Diary) Wednesday, January 19th at 7:15PM EDT (link)repeal ObamaCare so soon after taking office. Well done and keep up the good work.
I applaud them for taking the first step to
runner12 (Diary) Wednesday, January 19th at 7:15PM EDT (link)repeal ObamaCare so soon after taking office. Well done and keep up the good work.
McConnell says he will force a Senate vote on repeal
carolina Wednesday, January 19th at 7:34PM EDT (link)“McConnell Vows That House-Passed Repeal Will Get Senate Vote”
http://www.rollcall.com/news/-202594-1.html
I’m not registered at roll call……. so I don’t know how McConnell will do this.
If he's ever going to carry through a promise... This is the one.
nessa (Diary) Wednesday, January 19th at 7:42PM EDT (link)I could forgive a lot of squishyness and his utter lack of a spine with this particular vote.
“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
Contributor to Unified Patriots
teh twitter
Only if he wins it!!! If he cuts some backroom deal
davesinsanantonio (Diary) Thursday, January 20th at 5:14AM EDT (link)to bring this up with a guarantee it doesn’t pass, then he hasn’t grown a spine, he has just gotten cozier with the Left and almost as sneaky bad as they are. So, it must actually pass the Senate before he gets a pass. But, if he actually gets a clear repeal through the Senate, then I will give him a great deal of credit and support for other (conservative) efforts as long as he doesn’t revert to his usual squishyness.
McConnell says he will force a Senate vote on repeal
carolina Wednesday, January 19th at 7:34PM EDT (link)“McConnell Vows That House-Passed Repeal Will Get Senate Vote”
http://www.rollcall.com/news/-202594-1.html
I’m not registered at roll call……. so I don’t know how McConnell will do this.
Good. The Senate should have a clean up or down vote on Obama-care repeal
Spiral (Diary) Thursday, January 20th at 5:20AM EDT (link)Every Senator should have to cast an up or down vote on Obama-care repeal.
It’s the second most important issue facing this country right now, the first being the national debt. But Obama-care will explode this nation’s debt, so they are related.
For the Senate to duck the Obama-care repeal issue would be irresponsible.
LETS HAVE AN UP OR DOWN VOTE IN THE SENATE!!
The Obama Bread Lines
how humiliating it must have been
edwyrd (Diary) Wednesday, January 19th at 7:45PM EDT (link)after having had a super majority, that is the hat trick, owning washinton, and in two short years pissing it away for the glory of some marxist jackass in the white house, and then sitting there watching, muted, as the republicans methodically wrought their revenge, and to light forcefully appears the cosequence of poor stewardship and currupt politics…
“but men are different, they propound mathmatical theorms in beleaguered cities, conduct metaphysical arguments in condemned cells, make jokes on scaffolds, discuss the last new poem while advancing to the walls of quebec and comb their hair at thermopylae. it is our nature!
—C.S Lewis, weight of glory
It was a strong repudiation of the dems, no doubt about it. nt
carolina Wednesday, January 19th at 7:58PM EDT (link)Elections have consequences!
It was a strong repudiation of the dems, no doubt about it. nt
carolina Wednesday, January 19th at 7:58PM EDT (link)Elections have consequences!
So, both Shuler and Kissel voted no on this?
lineholder (Diary) Wednesday, January 19th at 8:33PM EDT (link)I hope the people of NC are paying attention.
Shuler went against Obamacare originally and stood against it in the elections during November. The folks over in the NW mountains are going to be very interested in his “it’s immoral to repeal it now” point of view.
And Kissell pulled a Richard Burr, justifying his cop-out as being a result of the “inevitability” that ObamaCare will stand as law, same as Burr did last month when voted to repeal DADT.
Yes: Shuler, Kissel and Matheson All Voted "No"
IJB Wednesday, January 19th at 9:09PM EDT (link)I think this will probably cook the goose of these three in 2012 (though redistricting will likely contribute to their “goose cooking”).
Similarly, if this ever comes up in the Senate, and Manchin of WV votes “No”, I think his 2012 reelection chances will be put in serious jeopardy…
A broad bipartisan mandate to repeal Obamacare.
NightTwister (Diary) Wednesday, January 19th at 11:49PM EDT (link)Hey, if they can use the worda that way, so can I.
“Baseball fits America well because it expresses our longing for the rule of law while licensing our resentment of law givers.” ― Major League Commissioner of Baseball A. Bartlett Giamatti
I hope
annas Wednesday, January 19th at 11:51PM EDT (link)Republicans don’t go squishy! I was happy about this vote, but the agreeing for everyone to sit together so the Dems won’t look pitiful and caving in to call the repeal of Obamacare something other than a “jobs killer” is pathetic! Where is the stamina for the fight on our side? They predictibly cave in to the Democrats–so afraid of being called racist and now “inciting the mentally ill.”
Am I missing something?
nilram (Diary) Thursday, January 20th at 1:32AM EDT (link)My understanding is that 10 Blue dogs who voted against Obamacare also voted against repeal. I don’t understand what they possibly hope to gain from this. If they had voted yea on repeal it would not have affected the outcome of the vote and they wouldn’t have come out of it looking like lying hypocrites.
I simply don’t understand why they would do this.
Any insights?
The soldier above all others prays for peace, for it is the soldier who must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war.
–Douglas MacArthur
Because Nancy gave them a pass!
walter_hanson Thursday, January 20th at 3:26AM EDT (link)In 2010 Nancy won narrow victories because she sequeezed enough votes out of her large majority to allow members to vote no. Now that they’re in the minority some of the No votes like Collin Peterson who must be dreaming of being Agriculture Chair again doesn’t want his fellow democrats to remember he supported repeal. That’s why he voted no.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
PUT IT IN THE DEBT INCREASE!!!!!!
walter_hanson Thursday, January 20th at 3:28AM EDT (link)President Obama and the Senate Democrats have to do a debt increase pretty soon. Put it in det increase and force the Democrats in the Senate and President Obama to vote for it because they don’t get their debt increase without this!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
On the stations like NBC
tlhanger Thursday, January 20th at 10:18AM EDT (link)All I am hearing is how much the people love Obamacare and only a few are opposed, so we just have to keep getting the message out. Lying through their teeth like always.
Terry L Hanger
Committee Hearings !
bclare Thursday, January 20th at 10:34AM EDT (link)I’m not sure which committee would call for hearings, but I want a simple question answered. I want Madam Secretary Sebelius to explain in excruciating detail why and how over 100 companies were given exemptions from the “wonderfulness” of Obamacare. It would be great if it were Ryan’s committee, but never-the-less a public hearing on this subject will add a ton of weight the repeal movement.
It's a three-letter word: J-O-B-S
KC (Diary) Thursday, January 20th at 10:57AM EDT (link)The Left is screaming that Boehner should stop wasting time with healthcare and focus on jobs. The ones screaming the loudest are those who ignored jobs for two years to steamroll over the will of the American people to pass this collosal disaster.
Boehner could (and should) argue that repealing Obamacare is directly related to jobs because allowing it to stand will result in widespread job LOSSES.
Just an ‘ole country boy from Missouri
Nancy allowed No votes
billybaa Thursday, January 20th at 12:57PM EDT (link)Dems in red states were allowed to vote no on Obama to help them get reelected
I was tossed off this site for bad language. I may be a moby, too.
yeah, but they just got stuck in a vice.
earlgrey (Diary) Thursday, January 20th at 1:11PM EDT (link)They were against it before they were for it. How does that work for 2012. They obviously think Obama will push them over the finish line in 2012, but that is a risky assumption. Those that got re-elected had to vote against the repeal to avoid a primary challenge. Now they are crossing fingers for 2012 and hoping that redistricting doesn’t work against them.
When you lay down with dogs. . .
Fiscal IS Moral.
miroco Thursday, January 20th at 1:37PM EDT (link)Making ones point is not nearly the fun when one doesn’t go to extremes, GROW UP! Much of this noise has deterred us from getting where we need to be. A close friend has a real issue with gays, for whatever reason I have none, we both agree we don’t want to pay for their parade. With each of these moral points, then the big abortion issue and Dollar wise the immigration issue, we could easily solve if we just got to the point. I have figured out the Dems don’t really care about any issue except to divert attention and accrue power. They NEED more welfare, they don’t want the border closed. They want a steady flow of drugs—it is weird but documentable.
A
scottb Thursday, January 20th at 1:57PM EDT (link)symbolic vote, nothing more
Manchin of WV
paulmarcelrene (Diary) Friday, January 21st at 1:32PM EDT (link)It doesn’t matter what Manchin of WV votes on repeal or any other issue. His win is good for the next 5 elections minimum. He has been the anointed crown royal of WV politics for many years and like his predecessor Robert C. Byrd, he has a free pass till death on the Senate seat. It is why he accept the job because he knows it is a life long seat and the governors seat in WV is term limited.There is no real Republican Party in WV other in the Eastern Panhandle, and will not be anytime this century. The Democrats have a lock on the state for the Senate Seats and all but one Congressional Seat. The peculiar thing about the voting population in WV, they occasionally elect a Republican Governor and tend to go be a Red State for President without seeming to realize it. (Obama had no chance of winning WV as they would never vote for a non-white President.)
For additional info on all things political feel free to visit:
paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com
Repeal, Yes. But
concap (Diary) Friday, January 21st at 4:05PM EDT (link)wouldn’t replacement all or in part, advocate the notion that the U.S. Government should be in the Health Care Business or govern how it should be run.
Just a thought.
The Constitution is neither Right or Left, it is American.
You need neither be Right or Left to vote American.
When you vote on the Federal level based on politics, you are voting for a lobbyist to promote your own personal wants and force them on others through taxation and legislation.
FF/FS/SL/RMIL/OK
Fiscal Federal/Fiscal State/Social Local/Retired Military/Oath Keeper