Dr. Asten: Maybe he was returning the favor...

Liberals are pissed at Connecticut senator, Joe Lieberman, for having legitimate opposition to the expansion of Medicare as a replacement for the "public" option. The anti-purity-test liberals of the Democratic base have declared the senator "Public Enemy #1" and have called on Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, to strip him of his committee chairmanship. Jane Hamsher, of Firedoglake, issues a "cease and desist" letter to celebrities calling on them to stop donating to Susan G. Komen's "Race for the Cure" organization where Lieberman's wife, Hadassah, is the spokeswoman (I wonder how many women will die of breast cancer if Hamsher's hair-brained scheme goes as planned...). These liberals act as if Lieberman had bamboozled Senate Democrats into thinking he supported their idea of "reform," and all of a sudden, had a change of heart. The problem is that Joe has made his positions known for quite sometime (It IS true that liberals believe history began this morning...).

This may be a stretch, but I find it amazing how liberals believe the US should ensure terrorist suspects are afforded every comfort known to man under the misguided belief that by doing so, they'll be nicer to us and leave us the hell alone, but are up in arms at their belief that Senator Lieberman will just not be satisfied. To me, the problem is not Joe Lieberman, it is the Democratic Congressional leadership who misread the results of the 2008 election. Senator Lieberman is the latest scapegoat for Obamessiah's agenda stalling in Congress. In a few weeks, there'll be another one. Democrats, as evidenced by their "gay rights" faction, can't seem to blame themselves for not being able to judge election results accurately...

Just a few days ago, between blaming Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Matthew Yglesias at the Toilet Paper factory, felt it was the "incoherent institutional set-up" in the US Senate that guarantees failure. Absent are Yglesia's posts about this faulty "set-up" during the Bush Years, when Democrats championed the filibuster privilege in an attempt to stymie the former president's judicial appointees and other items on his agenda. Oddly, this "incoherent" set-up didn't prohibit other presidents and previous congresses from passing laws. I wonder why the world's smartest legislators and president haven't figured out what their predecessors did a long time ago. It all goes back to a recurring theme, they misread the mandate...

Some Democrats in Congress are learning the lesson and have decided to call it quits, rather than suffer either a primary or general election defeat next year. I wonder if liberals will have the same feelings about congressional Democrats retiring four at a time, as they did about Republicans retiring before the 2006 elections. Liberals saw those retirements in 2006 as rats jumping from Bush's sinking ship, but something tells me that liberals won't believe that about themselves...it's 'cause they think they're smarter than you. Heck, if a so-called "public" option fails in the Senate, many Democrats will sit the election out anyway. From the looks of it, many Dems will be at home catching the six o'clock news then...so it's win-win.

It's nice to see confident Democrats now losing sleep at night worried about their congressional majorities. I say, shoulda worried about that while they were demonizing the Tea Party protesters and their constituents during the August townhall meetings...

Have a great day...

Cross-posted at Dr. Asten's Ponderances

...and whine about Republican "obstructionism..."

Feeling the heat from not only their constituencies and Congressional Republicans, Democrats seem hellbent on doing something to save their political asses for next year's midterms. It has been President Obama who made ObamaCare the keystone of his presidency, and by god, he's going to call on Congressional Democrats to get something on his desk before the year's out. According to the Politico, it has been Obama who's been adamant about excluding Republican alternatives to his ObamaCare plan. We recall during the Porkulus "debate," how Obama attacked GOP strawmen and Rush Limbaugh by telling the GOP that they had to stop listening to him in order to get things done...and that "he won."

The New York Times is reporting Senate Democrats are mulling the use of a 1974 Senate rule, "reconciliation," to force a simple majority vote on ObamaCare. Ed Morrissey notes the difficulty Democrats will experience if they decide to go this route. Meanwhile, liberals whine that it has been used by Republicans before, except in this case, a majority of the electorate don't support the legislation being considered for "reconciliation." I would presume that if Democrats went ahead with this, they'll pay a political price next year. A better strategy is to listen and seriously consider Republican proposals and cease with the demagoguery.

Read more of the blog here

...and the Easter Bunny is real...

The collective senior fellows at Hillary Clinton-George Soros backed Media Matters for America have determined that the time for talking about ObamaCare has passed. Eric Boehlert compares the town hall protesters to the "discredited" Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Jamison Foser claims that public policy is too complex for the ignorant masses, and John Santore whines about Sarah Palin evoking nuance in calling HR 3200, Section 1233, a prescription for "death panels." It must be hard to level criticism at people who are to blame for this mess, it's easier to project feelings onto someone else, not that it's a strange and new phenomenon coming from liberals.

Boehlert complains that the media is giving too much air time to the town hall protesters in the same way they gave the "discredited" Swift Boat Veterans (SBVT). First off, I'd like to make it clear that to liberals, the SBVT has been discredited, everyone else realizes Senator Kerry embellished his record during the VietNam Conflict. He says that the media never gave the same airtime to the anti-war movement during the Bush Years, but meanwhile back on Earth, there have been several times when the Obamedia scrubbed the radical positions of anti-war groups such as, Code Pink, I-ANSWER, World Can't Wait (Don't you all miss Sunsara Taylor?), to portray demonstrators as frustrated everyday Amuricans...and it was top news. Speaker Mimi chastised "disruptors" at health care town halls, clearly showing she had an epiphany in 2009, like other liberals who now view dissent as manufactured, but was essential in 2006...

Read more here

...here's Mark Karlin!

It's refreshing when someone inadvertently substantiates someone else's point of view. Usually, when I discuss an issue with someone, I try to stay on the topic at hand, up until the point the person I'm debating realizes they're losing and serves up a distraction. On a recent blog, I made the statement that the only thing I had seen from ObamaCare supporters were marginalization, demonization, and no rebuttals, and a response to that comment backed up my claim. The Supremes recently ruled that Troy Davis, convicted in the murder of an off-duty policeman, Mark MacPhail in 1989, is able to present evidence to prove his innocence. Upon finding out Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented, Mark Karlin declared them guilty of murder (Should I bother noting that he called Justice Thomas a "puppet"? No, silly wabbit, liberals can't be racists!).

I'm all for allowing defendants to present new evidence that supposedly proves their innocence, but demonizing Scalia and Thomas for noting how unprecedented it is for the Supremes to allow new evidence in a court case to trigger a habeas review, is highly off the mark. Davis never says that his constitutional rights had been violated, he's only calling for evidence to be considered to help determine his innocence. Scalia, nor Thomas, ever said it was ok for the federal and state government to execute an innocent man. Besides, it isn't clear that the evidence the court had been ordered to consider will overturn Davis' conviction. The idea here is, as it is with ObamaCare and Obama's policies, to marginalize those who have legitimate questions about Troy Davis' claim. h/t: publius at Obsidian Wings...

Read more here

...and Republicans are stupid!

DKos/Research2K recently released a poll that is being used by some liberal blogs as evidence that it is only the Right who's lying in the ObamaCare debate. The numbers, to me at least, indicate that not very many people understand what is in the bills that make up ObamaCare. They aren't hearing the truth from their Democratic congressional delegation, and they're not hearing it from the Teleprompter-in-Chief. If it has only been the Right who's been lying about ObamaCare, then the Left should have been quick to explain why the Right's assertions were wrong. The only thing I've seen ObamaCare supporters do is demonize, marginalize, but offer no rebuttals.

Expressing frustration over conservative Democrats' objections about the bill, blue blogger, Digby, calls on Democrats to oust the Blue Dogs from Congress because he believes they will never side with the president (then why are they Democrats?). Does Digby's finger-wagging indignation lie in his ignorance of the districts these Blue Dog Democrats represent? If Blue Dogs fail to represent their conservative constituents, then a reversal of Rahm Emanuel's 2006 and 2008 strategy will occur. Instead of siding with conservatism-lite, they'll go for the full monty and vote Republican. If Democrats decide to pursue Digby's strategy and campaign against say, my congressman John Barrow (D-GA), by placing an outright liberal in the primary, and he wins, the voters here will go Republican. Digby will have to kiss Obamessiah's "successful" legislation goodbye...

Read more here

...because we have nothing else better to do...

Liberals proclaim to the unsuspecting masses how much they care for the little guy. Minorities don't need to stand up for themselves, for the liberal will fight their battles for them. I'm reminded of a very funny episode of All in the Family, where the Bunkers are robbed by two black men, played by Cleavon Little and Demond Wilson. When the Bunkers arrive back home, they find out they've been robbed and become hostages of the robbers. In a discussion that breaks out, the robbers discuss their upbringing and soon discover that Archie is a "dyed in the wool bigot," and that his son-in-law, Mike, is a liberal, who called on Archie to understand the underlying social causes. The robbers chided Mike for talking about a subject he didn't understand.

GayPatriotWest talks about liberals who refuse to understand the fact that people have sincere concerns about their policies. Since liberal groups and protests are funded by the Wizard, they believe everyone else does it. There is always an ulterior motive to the "Tea Party" movement, the "Birthers," the town hall protesters, and the "Deathers." It's like the positions held by conservatives since dirt was new are now deemed "racist," because heaven forbid, there's a black man occupying the Oval Office. Under the guise of making corporate CEOs aware of the programs on which their companies advertise, liberals use what they, and no one else, find offensive to portray a television personality they don't like in a bad light. It's kinda funny when Rudy Giuliani, Laura Ingraham, and Michelle Malkin protested "Piss Christ," and Verizon's sponsorship of Akon after his Trinidad incident, respectively, liberals claimed a "chill" was felt over their right to free speech...

Read more here

...that strategy helped us in '06 and '08, why wouldn't it work in '10 and '12?

James Carville was an integral part of the Clinton White House, so his latest claim, that forcing the GOP to filibuster ObamaCare would hurt them politically, is absurd. As I noted in a previous post, the 103rd Congress, that was debating HillaryCare, had more than enough votes to pass any and everything the liberal base wanted. No matter how many times Democrats tried to blame their failures on Republicans, the electorate refused to buy the spin. The major problem for HillaryCare lie in the former First Lady's refusal to listen to ideas that would make the bill better, the same is apparently true for Obama. His reliance on San Fran Nan and Pinky Reid to craft a "bipartisan" bill, knowing they're probably the most partisan people on the Hill, shows that he did not intend to compromise at all.

There is a brouhaha over former House Majority Leader, Dick Armey's assertion that the Soros-funded MoveOn.org ran two "Bush=Hitler" commercials in 2004. I would like to note that while MoveOn.org did not run the ads during Bushie's 2004 State of the Union address, they did condone them implicitly, since they did not condemn the comparison. With that said, I would like to focus on the ad that DID win the "Bush in 30 seconds" contest, which showed children who'd be stuck paying for the alleged $1Trillion deficit, created by the Bush Administration. As I type this, there is an "Obama in 30 seconds" contest (though I would like to assume that no "Obama=Hitler" connections will occur in the fuzzy minds of liberals). I am willing to bet that none of the winning ads will tie Obama to the skyrocketing deficit, if anything, they'll remind us how much in lockstep liberals are with Obama's wrongheaded agenda.

Read more here

...'cause I think Maureen Dowd can't "quit [me]..."


The "Good" McCain writes in a blogpost about New York Times columnist, Maureen Dowd's latest obsession, Sarah Palin. I have to say that in the time Palin has been in the national spotlight, she's come across as a serious policy debater, much to the chagrin of her left-wing counterparts. She's still regarded as a "dumb hick" by many in the liberal blogosphere, who seem to still think that Obama is governing as a "post-partisan." Palin's focus on questionable portions in the House bill, H. R. 3200, shifted the debate from being spoon-fed Obama delusions about the legislation to the electorate asking their congressional representatives about said provisions. Soon, Obamessiah had to address Palin's assertions, although he fell flat on his face, and the US Senate is mulling whether to drop one or more provisions in their version of the bill, which could be misused.

So while Democrats and liberals continue to go after conservatives for asking the hard questions, they don't notice how the fumbling by the Obama Administration is helping to sink this ship. Very little of the ire coming from liberals focuses on Obama's modus operandi, which is voting "present," as being a major reason why this bill may end up being a watered down version of what they envisioned. They prefer, instead, to continue to push this notion that the protesters at town halls are paid members of the healthcare insurance lobby and pitchfork carrying listeners of Rush Limbaugh. Liberals see these protesters as opposing Obama the Man, and not protesting his policies, you know, like they did with President Bush...right? I would like to note that if liberals are going to start referring to the healthcare industry and ObamaCare opponents as "Swiftboaters," then they're admitting that the protesters of ObamaCare are at least on the right track.

Matt Taibbi, who recently accused Newt Gingrich of backtracking on supporting "end-of-life" counseling, when he did no such thing, writes in his latest post about feeling guilty by not lauding the accomplishments of the people he sees as wanting an actual government takeover of the healthcare industry "fix" to our healthcare system. Upon the news that the Obama White House is waffling in its support of the so-called "public option," he tears into not only the House and Senate Democratic leadership, but against Obama by comparing them to...wait for it...George W. Bush. I mean, for a guy so hated by liberals, why are they calling on Obama to act more like him? The fact that the "public option" is being pushed further down the plank, like other provisions of the bill, should be a reason to scrap the entire thing and start over...

Fat chance, this is all to save the dear Obamessiah...Zandar told me so.

Have a great day...

...and Republicans...

No liberal better tell me they're smarter than conservatives ever, ever again. As more people continue to be appalled at the bills which make up ObamaCare, when they're exposed to the light, Democrats and liberals are still hoping that demonizing and marginalizing ObamaCare opponents will work. In one blogpost, Zandar, believes the opposition to ObamaCare, and his policies in general, is because of latent racism (while trying to convince people he's not calling them "racists"). A seemingly recurring theme on the liberal side is to portray the GOP as "happy with the status quo," even though a majority of the electorate, and the GOP, is not only "happy with the status quo," but are open for reform, not a takeover of the healthcare system. Democrats are hoping that the opposition we see in town halls all over the country, will turn into support in a few weeks (Ah, the faux outrage card). Based on that, it sounds like Democrats in the House will continue to push this crap over the objections of their constituents (when did that become a winning strategy?).

The president and Congressional Democrats are continuing to try and pull the wool over the eyes of their constituents. It's being reported throughout the blogosphere and the Obamedia, that the "public option," which would destroy the private insurance industry, may be on its way out the door, possibly picking a fight with the more liberal wing of the Democratic Party (but that won't be enough to keep them from voting for him if he decides to run for reelection...). This revelation prompted liberals to ask "Well, who IS Barack Obama..." (Shoulda listened to the Right and Hillary Clinton supporters, who were trying to tell you, instead of calling them "racists").

Read more here

...which is a policy change from 2001...

For a group of people who complain about conservatives seeing the world in black and white, liberals seem to form their arguments about healthcare insurance healthcare reform in the same frame of mind. Either you agree with the so-called "public option" and everything in the House bill, or you don't want reform at all. There is no time to discuss compromise, in the views of Democrats. The people who are asking the hard questions of their congressional representatives are maligned as "astroturfers," "political terrorists," "mobsters," and "racists." David Broder believes these protesters are going to end up hurting the GOP, which I find troubling since according to a USA Today poll, more independents sympathize with the protesters over Obama/Pelosi spin. It also doesn't occur to Broder to note the frustration Democratic constituents have with their representatives ignoring them, perhaps he's not seen the video of Sheila Jackson-Lee. It seems silly that Democrats expect to get away with griping about Republicans not wanting to compromise, when they [Dems] have already poisoned the well, as they've done many times before.

In their pursuit to prove that Republicans don't want to compromise, Obama absolutists point to placards which depict President Obama as another reincarnation of Hitler, whose name is off-limits, lest the target be Republican (Wonkette believes that Lyndon LaRouche, a Democrat, is now a fringe Republican...or something), use singular episodes of a protester destroying a poster depicting Rosa Parks (more on that here), or make shit up out of whole cloth. The strategy is obvious, if liberals can get away with portraying concerned Amuricans as members of a fringe "I Hate Everything Obama" group, then they can silence other critics of this plan. In addition to all the other questions that remain unanswered by liberals in regards to ObamaCare, why are they so insistent on not holding debate? Was it ok to have our representatives vote on the bill without reading it? I wish the PATRIOT Act received the same consideration from them...

Read more here