The other day I pointed out that Fox News analyst Kirsten Powers should really fact check any talking point coming from the White House and held her responsible (fair is fair) for her own ignorance of the end-of-life provision that she debated on Hannity.

To review, Powers said that President George W. Bush’s veto of the bill that included the end-of-life provision was “not true.”  I reported at Big Government, Big Journalism, and HotAir that Bush vetoed that bill which Powers, the MSM, and lefty bloggers tried to use as cover for the end-of-life provisions in the newly revamped wellness visits paid for by Medicare.

Nevertheless, that didn’t stop the left and MSM from continuing to use that false talking point given to them by the Obama administration as seen in The Hill’s piece:

However, an administration spokesman said the regulation, which is less specific than the reform law’s draft language, is actually a continuation of a policy enacted under former President George W. Bush.

Ironically, the administration attempted to use Bush as cover, when, in fact the policy was enacted by means of a congressional veto override.  And that brings us back to our beloved Kirsten Powers and her latest.  After 4 days of knowing the truth about the veto, Powers took my advice and tweeted:

Powers cites the WSJ as her source, which did correct the story as I noted in my original post.  And I do hope that’s the case, because so many news outlets had the same narrative/talking point–which also could mean that they all got the same memo.

Additionally, The Hill and the Politico have not corrected their stories.  The Politico actually goes out of its way to further advance the bogus blame by interviewing Richard Sorian, assistant secretary of Public Affairs for HHS and allows him to spew more propaganda elaborate:

Sorian also clarified that it was the Bush administration that first implemented regulations regarding end-of-life counseling. The wellness visit began as a “Welcome to Medicare” exam, which was created by the Republican-led Congress in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. In 2008, when Democrats held the majority, Congress passed the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act, which modified the exam to include end-of-life planning. The Bush administration first implemented regulations that included the end-of life planning as part of the wellness visit created in MIPPA.

B-,b-,b- but it was Bush.  Not.  It was a congressional veto override that enacted that law.  Period.  And I’m sure that Sorian knows that.  They all do.  Now, where do we go from here.  I’ll tell you.  If Kirsten Powers can issue an apology on Twitter, I’m sure the Politico and Jason Millman of The Hill can too.  So, we will wait a few more days.

Crossposted at HotAir’s Green Room and Big Journalism (link fixed)

I’m going to take the death panel  end-of-life planning conundrum down one point at a time to make this very clear for Americans to understand what the Pelosi-led Democrats have done to your healthcare and attempt to take cover under a Bush-era law–the Medicare Improvement for Patients and Providers Act of 2008.  The Hill reported that the Obama White House attempted to calm Americans’ fears of the dreaded death panels:

The Medicare policy will pay doctors for holding end-of-life-care discussions with patients, according to the Times. A similar provision was dropped from the new healthcare reform law after Republicans accused the administration of withholding care from the sick, elderly and disabled. However, an administration spokesman said the regulation, which is less specific than the reform law’s draft language, is actually a continuation of a policy enacted under former President George W. Bush.

“The only thing new here is a regulation allowing the discussions … to happen in the context of the new annual wellness visit created by [healthcare reform],” Obama spokesman Reid Cherlin told The Wall Street Journal.

In 2003, Medicare added a consultation visit for seniors new to the program, according to the Journal. Another 2008 law, enacted under Bush, said the visit can include “end-of-life” planning discussions.

However, what The Hill’s Jason Millman forgot to mention in his article was that President Bush VETOED the 2008 bill and the Democrats, along with some “good-willed” Republicans OVERRODE Bush’s veto forcing him to sign the legislation into law.*  The bill dealt with doctors’ reimbursements and more, but the Democrats slipped in the end-of-life planning by opening up the Social Security Act, which I have stated many times is dangerous, because once changed, it is difficult to amend again and allows for tinkering with the Medicare fee schedule and covered services definitions and requirements.

For the record, here is the text that the Democrats changed:

(b) Revisions to Initial Preventive Physical Examination-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 1861(ww) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(ww)) is amended–

(A) in paragraph (1)–

(i) by inserting ‘body mass index,’ after ‘weight’;

(ii) by striking ‘, and an electrocardiogram’; and

(iii) by inserting ‘and end-of-life planning (as defined in paragraph (3)) upon the agreement with the individual’ after ‘paragraph (2)’;

Comedy gold indeed, when Democrats blame Bush for, um, everything wrong in America, and then use him for cover on healthcare.

Crossposted at HotAir’s GreenRoom

* President Bush did not sign this bill into law as the congressional record mistakenly notes.  After Congress overrode Bush’s veto, President Bush was not required to sign the bill to enact it.

Nothing from the Democrats surprises us anymore, but I’m sure that 2012 presidential hopefuls Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are quite surprised to hear that outgoing Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT) will support the trillion dollar pork-stuffed omnibus bill.  And they should be a bit alarmed as well as they both actively campaigned for Bennett.

Newt helped kick off the Bennett campaign by slamming the Obama agenda and the Democrats’ spending spree, carving himself out as a fiscal conservative that knew what was wrong with Washington.  Romney also threw his hat into the Bennett ring with this ad.  Furthermore, Newt tried to sell us that Bennett was leading the charge to repeal Obamacare.  But all that seems to have vanished as this omnibus bill that Bennett supports actually funds the implementation of Obamacare with more than $1 billion buried in it.

After being duped in 2008, voters see career politicians as power hungry and self-serving–with Bennett only confirming why the people of Utah voted in Mike Lee.   Bennett should do the right thing and vote no, but according to The Hill he stated:

“That’s my intention,” said retiring Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) when asked if he would support the package.
 
Bennett said earmarks in the bill might give some of his GOP colleagues reason to hesitate but wouldn’t affect his vote.
 
“It will be tough for some, but not for me,” he said.

Hmmmm.   A $1.1 Trillion spending bill that he has not read, is stuffed with pork, and funds Obamacare is not a tough vote?

Bennett is showing everyone how he flexes his power and it’s difficult to see his vote as anything but payback–especially after watching these campaign videos:

Bennett’s telephone number is (202) 224-5444.  His memory is short; remind him.

Crossposted at HotAir’s Green Room

From my original post at Big Peace

When analyzing the sudden urgency for the ratification of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), we have to look at the pattern of the Obama administration and the tendency to go into full crisis mode to get what they want passed. START is no different, but is it more panic and political to save face and recover political capital lost in a continually unraveling administration?

With the talking points in place courtesy of the AP, including the need to get inspectors on the ground in Russia, and to “trust, but verify” (a must read), we need to go back to Obama stating he has “full trust” in Russian President Dimitry Medvedev as he did in July 2009. Furthermore, Defense Secretary Robert Gates confirmed that Russia poses no threat to the United States and met with Russian Defense Minister Anatoliy Serdyukov in late September 2010 and reached several agreements:

A joint plan to form two working groups on defense cooperation was agreed, and according to Pentagon sources a large number of activities will be developed including bilateral military exercises and a variety of programs. The agreement will facilitate the annual renewal of a bilateral defense cooperation package, approved by the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Russian Chief of the General Staff, reflecting the findings and recommendations of the joint working group. Serdyukov commented that this framework is being taken seriously by Moscow, not least since it avoids theoretical discussion and concentrates on practical defense assistance, and observed that his visit to Washington will lend “serious impetus to the development of cooperation between the two countries’ defense departments” (Interfax, September 15).

While the Obama administration is now in panic mode, the media continues the battle, but there is a larger issue. These underreported stories from late October and early November prove interesting regarding ratification:

Russia’s State Duma Foreign Affairs Committee has repealed an earlier decision to ratify the latest Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the US after the American Senate made around 30 amendments to the original version.

­Among them are clauses stipulating that the treaty does not cover deployment of a US missile defense system, or ballistic missiles with conventional warheads.

“The presidents of Russia and of the US have set the task of synchronizing all procedures concerning the new START treaty. Nevertheless, now we have to speak not only about synchronizing efforts to keep up with the deadlines, but of synchronizing the contents as well,” said Konstantin Kosachev, head of the State Duma Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mikhail Margelov from the Russian Federation Council hopes the current “reset” in the two countries’ relations will not be affected by the latest developments.

“There’s nothing wrong with our relations with the Republican Party,” he said. “All the criticism of the Republicans against [the] START re-agreement, for example, was criticism not against Russian position or Russia’s views against START treaty, but against the position of the democratic government during the negotiations and against Obama. I think ‘reset’ is not in danger.”

So, “reset” is not in jeopardy as being portrayed by Obama, and if the Russians pose no threat to the US, why is the Obama administration manufacturing this crisis for a treaty that appears to still be a work in progress. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the only ones who have problems with the Republicans are the Democrats and Obama, because it surely isn’t the Russians.

From my original at Big Government

Yes, I’m serious.

Why is Mitt Romney even in the running, when healthcare played such an important role in the mid-term elections as noted by Rasmussen:

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of those who voted in today’s elections nationwide favor repeal of the national health care bill passed by congressional Democrats in March, including 48% who Strongly Favor it.

Rasmussen Reports telephone surveying nationwide after the polls closed found that 40% are opposed to repeal, with 32% who Strongly Oppose it.

This mirrors what we have found every week in surveys since March.

Romney, as most know, is the one-term governor of Massachusetts and the creator of RomneyCare.  With two Massachusetts’s miracles for the state, a trifecta may be a tall order when presented on the national stage for the presidency–especially when Republican Senator Scott Brown, also from MA, has some questionable leanings.

But, then again, maybe not.

Quinnipiac released its latest poll showing Romney, ahead of former Governor Mike Huckabee, and edging out President Obama in 2012:

In trial heats for 2012, former Massachusetts Gov. Romney receives 45 percent to 44 percent for Obama, while the president gets 46 percent to 44 percent for Mr. Huckabee. Matched against Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, a virtual unknown to most voters, the president leads 45 – 36 percent.

Romney and Obama do matchup well, but maybe on the same side of the aisle as Romney is quite RINOish.  In addition to their love of government-run healthcare, Obama and Romney do have some other public relations commonality; they play to the ignorance of the people by capitalizing on their popularity.

Democrat Tom Daschle, as seen in this PBS interview, explained Obama’s situation for 2008 the presidential run:

Why the 2008 window for Obama?

I think the window is important for a couple of reasons. One, it was an open opportunity — that is, he wasn’t running against an incumbent; and secondly, because the longer he’s in Washington, the more history he has, and the more history he has, the more he’s going to be explaining his votes and his actions and his statements and his positions that undermine his message. His message is one of change, his message is one of new direction, and it’s harder to do that after you’ve been in Washington for a long time.

Daschle is correct.  Romney was elected governor after his popular role as CEO of the Salt Lake City 2002 Olympics, but did not seek a second term as MA governor under the guise that everyone expected him to run for president.  But, really, could his dropping approval ratings as governor have played a larger role in that decision not to seek a second term.  An incumbent loss would have been a PR disaster for Romney and would have crushed any hope of a presidential run.  And Obama, well, we are watching the unraveling of a radical left-wing presidency that continues to govern against the will of the people.

Entering into the 2012 relentless campaign season, both have records on healthcare and the tea partiers are not going to let Romney forget, Obama just got mauled in the mid-terms, but on the other hand will the “general” voting public remember come 2012?  Romney’s slick PR campaign, which he can afford, sanitizes his political persona.

Self-righteous and ideological politicians tend to bank their power hopes on the gullibility and short memories of the electorate.  Romney’s history on taxes and, well, RomneyCare should immediately disqualify him from the 2012 Republican nod as should his zeal to be president.  President Eisenhower once said, “Any man who wants to be president is either an egomaniac or crazy.”  Those words ring true today, don’t they?

Big Government Editor’s Note: The use of a photo of Mitt Romney speaking at Heritage Foundation was deliberate. Conservative activists don’t fully understand the role that Heritage played in passing RomneyCare in Massachusetts. Nor do they understand fully that Heritage was a pioneer of  the “individual mandate” provision that was incorporated into Obamacare.

Originally posted at Big Government

Does any Democrat know how to take responsibility for their actions?During the CNN/St. Petersburg Times Florida gubernatorial debate, Alex Sink’s makeup artist showed her a text messagefrom a campaign staffer, which was a clear violation of the debate rules. CNN reports:

Sink, the Democratic nominee, was shown a two-sentence message on a cell phone that offered her advice during the debate. Republican nominee Rick Scott who was sitting next to her in this nationally televised debate, noticed the violation and notified a CNN official, who approached the make-up artist and Sink and confiscated the cell phone.

The message read: “The attorney who [w]on the Sykes suit said alex sink did nothing wrong. Tell not to let him keep talking about her.”

After the debate, the Sink campaign released a statement from the candidate announcing that the advisor who sent the message has been removed from the campaign. The advisor was not named in the statement, but a campaign spokesman confirmed it is Brian May, who signed the rules agreement before the debate on behalf of the Sink campaign. emphasis mine

It was also confirmed that May has been removed from the campaign.

However, if you look at the video Sink clearly has no problem with reading the text message, so she herself must carry the blame here. She could have told her makeup artist it was against the rules, but clearly she was receptive to the message. See for yourself. Sink read the text message without hesistation, and then threw her aide under the bus without hesistation. Typical Democrat blame-shifter.

Well, what a day makes. Sink now plays the mommy card. Sink, with Chris Matthews, only digs a hole for herself with a lie to seek cover:

But, CNN’s John King makes it very clear they have audio of the exchange between the makeup artist and Sink:

This should seal the deal for Rick Scott, because not only is Sink incapable of taking responsibility for her actions, we now know she will lie to cover them up.

Ohio District 6 are you listening?  No one likes a wife beater–especially someone that plays it off that he doesn’t hit women–but really beats his wife into submission as noted in the court documents:

Charles admits that early in the marriage he kicked and struck Plaintiff and accused her of adultery . Clara shall confirm the beatings, slappings, and kicking at the early stage of her marriage to the point where she was afraid to anger the Defendant and instead yielded to his demands…

He jumped out of his chair and grabbed her about the neck as he slammed her into the refrigerator. He then grabbed her about both arms, shaking her as they both went over to the kitchen counter which Mrs. Wilson struck with enough force to take the breath out of her. She then fell to the floor, hitting the bottom door to the sink. As she lay there stunned, she couldn’t move her head or pick up her arm.“Clara was taken to the East Ohio Regional Hospital by her son. She initially lied to the emergency room physician that she had fallen down stairs. The physician’s observation of a bruise on the back of the right shoulder was inconsistent with a fall down the stairs. He questioned her further and learned of her husband’s assault.”

Charles admits grabbing Plaintiff [his then-wife, Clara] by the arms and shaking her. He admits grabbing her around the neck with one hand. He admits bruising Plaintiff’s arms and neck. emphasis mine

So, Democrat Congressman Charlie Wilson beat his wife so badly that he sent her to the emergency room.

I wonder how that would change these ratings if these organizations knew he beat his wife into submission.  According to VoteSmart.org, Wilson rated on women’s issues as follows:

• 2007 In 2007 American Association of University Women gave Representative Wilson a grade of 83.
• 2009  Representative Wilson supported the interests of the American Association of University Women 63 percent in 2009.
• 2007-2008 Representative Wilson supported the interests of the American Association of University Women 90 percent in 2007-2008.
• 2007-2008 On the votes used to calculate its ratings, the National Organization for Women attaches more value to those votes it considers more important. For 2007-2008, the National Organization for Women gave Representative Wilson a rating of 75 percent.

Interestingly enough, there have been other candidates that have had information from divorce records unsealed that caused them to leave their races.  I’m wondering why Democrat Charlie Wilson hasn’t come forward and stepped down; doesn’t he see that he is not worthy to hold this position with this information out in the sunlight and has no place in the United States Congress.

Charlie Wilson, Democrat from Ohio District 6, you beat your wife–into submission–and if that isn’t enough…

From my original post at Big Government

Dick Blumenthal appears to have hand foot in mouth disease.  Is he really that out of touch with America and Connecticut voters?  Hasn’t he realized that there are a record number of people on food stamps and unemployment is almost 10%?  Good Times?  Really, Dick?

Linda McMahon’s site is here.

Crossposted to RWN