Thoughts on Harry Reid and Mitt Romney

There are few people in politics for whom I have less respect than Harry Reid.  He ranks even below Barack Obama in my book.  He has been an embarrassment to his country and his party for years.  During the Bush Administration, he called President Bush a "loser" while speaking to a class of school age children, and he stated on the Senate floor that the U.S. had lost the war in Iraq while our troops were still fighting and in harm's way.  He made crass comments about Obama being a light-skinned Negro with no dialect during the 2008 election campaign, and he compared opponents of ObamaCare to supporters of slavery and segregation on the Senate floor.  Under his "leadership," the Senate hasn't passed a budget in several years.  Yet the Democrats are happy to have him as the highest-ranking Democrat in Congress and the public face of their party. 

Reid's latest outrage is to claim that Mitt Romney hasn't paid taxes in 10 years, claiming some secret source connected to Bain Capital.  This claim is ridiculous on its face, since there have been no audits or investigations by the IRS.  Reid has no evidence to back up his claim and refuses to name his source.  When challenged about it, Reid demonstrated his legal prowess by saying the burden of proof was on Romney to disprove this ridiculous allegation.  It seems pretty obvious to me that Reid is just making up claims out of thin air, since he knows the only way to disprove them is for Romney to release his tax returns for the past ten years and Romney has already said he will not do that.  Remember, the man doing this is the Senate Majority Leader. 

Not surprisingly, conservatives are unloading on Reid.  Rich Lowry calls Reid a "malicious hack" who cares nothing about his "reputation, [his] institution, or the truth."  The Wall Street Journal editorial page refers to Reid's accusations as "a smear from the fever swamps."  But interestingly, Reid is facing some harsh criticism from the Left as well.  Liberal Richard Cohen of The Washington Post, for example, wrote a column entitled "Harry Reid's Gutter Politics" in which he surprisingly unloads not just on Reid, but also on the Democrats in the Senate and the Obama campaign team for supporting Reid.  Cohen writes:

For Reid, this is yet another brazen and tasteless partisan attack. As majority leader, he has managed to sink the public image of the Senate even lower than it would otherwise be. He contributes to bad feelings, gridlock and the sense — nay, the reality — that everything is done for political advantage....  He is the face of the Democratic Party in the Senate and the ally of President Obama. Yet, not a single Democrat has had the spine to rebuke Reid. The White House has been given the chance and explicitly ducked its duty....  Reid has managed to draw both his party and his president into the gutter with him. When Reid accuses the Republicans of being overly partisan, he now lacks all credibility....  As for Obama, he is tarnished by this episode. The fresh new face that promised us all a different kind of politics is suddenly looking cheesy. The soaring rhetoric that Obama used in his first campaign has come to ground in the mud of Harry Reid’s latter-day McCarthyism.

Wow.  When you are getting this kind of blistering criticism from the Left, you know you have crossed a line.  Perhaps this explains why yesterday, finally, Obama's press secretary started to back away from Reid's comments.

I also wanted to briefly comment on Romney's response to the Chick-Fil-A controversy.  For those who haven't heard, Romney was asked for his opinion on Friday about Chick-Fil-A as well as Michele Bachmann's allegations about the Muslim Brotherhood's infiltration of the federal government.  Romney refused to comment on either one, stating that "those are not things that are part of my campaign." 

At least with regard to Chick-Fil-A (haven't researched the other topic enough to have an informed opinion), I think this was a mistake, both on the merits and on the politics of the issue.  I have already written extensively about my opinion on the merits of this issue.  I think Romney also missed a big opportunity here politically.  I understand that he wants to keep the focus of his campaign on the economy, but that doesn't mean he can never discuss other issues that come up.  He didn't even have to get into the issue of the definition of marriage.  All he needed to say was that the Democratic mayors were out of line in trying to deny Chick-Fil-A the right to operate in their cities.  It would have been hard even for the left-wing media to twist that statement into something controversial, while at the same time it would have encouraged Romney's conservative base that he understood the free speech and government control issues behind this "gay" controversy.  Romney has already come out in support of traditional marriage, so it's not like the gay rights activists pushing for the Chick-Fil-A boycott are going to vote for him anyway.  Or, as Dennis Prager points out, he could have made an even stronger statement by eating lunch at Chick-Fil-A and dessert at Ben & Jerry's, and in so doing attempt to draw an even sharper distinction between himself and the Democrats on the issue of freedom.  By refusing to say anything at all, Romney is reinforcing the concerns that many on the Right have about him -- that he is a squish who avoids controversy at any cost and cannot be counted on to stand up for issues that we care about.  The massive Chick-Fil-A turnout last week shows that this is an issue that the Republican base is passionate about, and Romney would have been wise not to just brush it aside.  Romney failed to swing at a soft pitch that should have been hit out of the park, and I think that says something worrisome about his political instincts (possibly his principles as well).

UPDATE: Apparently Jim Geraghty of Campaign Spot shares my extreme frustration with the dirty tactics of the Democrats.  He has a great blog post entitled "Wanted: A Running Mate Who Will Fight Back, With Passion!"  He cites a recent Obama campaign that accuses Romney of killing a woman.  Yes, you read that right.  Obama is running ads claiming Mitt Romney killed someone.  That's the kind of opponent we're up against.  Geraghty is right.  We need a fighter.

So This Is What Hope-and-Change Looks Like

Item 1: The Justice Department's involvement in a botched operation called "Fast and Furious" which put 2,000 U.S. guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. Those cartels then used the guns to kill more than 300 people, including two U.S. agents. The Assistant Attorney General then apparently lied about it in May, when he denied that the government had lost track of any guns. Apparently, Obama's Justice Department is not only woefully incompetent, but also corrupt. Of course, no one has lost his job over this yet, and don't hold your breath either.

Item 2: The Department of Health and Human Services's awarding of a $433 million no-bid contract to a company run by a top Obama donor. Both the bidding process and the product provided under the bid appear to be highly suspect, as this NY Post article outlines, and now even Democratic senators are calling for an investigation. Hmmm...sounds a little like Solyndra. And come to think of it, no one in the Obama administration lost his job over that scandalous waste of taxpayer dollars either.

It's not just that the Obama administration is left-wing. It's that it is incompetent and corrupt. I can understand why liberals would defend an administration that is merely far to the left, but I would think they would be bothered by the incompetence and corruption.

Finally, one of my favorite conservative columnists, Mark Steyn, humorously demonstrates the folly of Obama's big-government mindset in this National Review Online article.

Elitism and the Democratic Party, Part II

Last week, I explained how the policy positions of the Democratic party are largely elitist. I also want to point out the incredible arrogance and elitism that many elected Democrats exhibit in their words and behavior. Here are a few examples:

1. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House. She referred to townhall participants protesting the health care bill as "people carrying swastikas." In a speech early in the year, she told her audience that "we have to pass the health care bill so you can find out what's in it." And of course, most recently, she called for an investigation into the source of funds for those opposing the Ground Zero mosque. This San Francisco radical is the person chosen by Democrats in the House of Representatives to be their leader.

2. Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader. He has a long history of making outrageous statements (when Bush was president he called him a "loser" in front of schoolchildren and said that the War in Iraq was "lost" while our troops were still in harm's way fighting). Most recently, Reid called townhall participants protesting the health care bill "evilmongers." In a speech on the Senate floor, he compared opponents of the Democrats' unpopular health care bill to racists who opposed desegregation and civil rights for blacks in the 1960's. He demonstrated racial insensitivity himself as well as tacitly accusing the American people of racism when he said that Obama would be acceptable to voters because he was a "light-skinned Negro" without an accent. Just last week, he said in a speech that he couldn't believe that any Hispanics could be Republicans. This hateful man, deeply disliked by voters in his own state, is the person chosen by Democrats in the Senate to be their leader.

3. Baron Hill, Indiana Congressman. The esteemed congressman held a town hall meeting in his district last year regarding the health care debate, and a college student respectfully asked why she couldn't videotape the proceedings for her school project. The congressman's reply? "This is my town hall meeting. I set the rules. [waits for boos from crowd to die down.] Let me say that again. This is my town hall meeting for you. You're not going to tell me how to run my congressional office." (What a tremendous favor the congressman did to condescend to spend a couple of hours of his valuable time with the little people! How dare they be so ungrateful?) He goes onto to add that he doesn't want a video to end up on YouTube in a "compromising position." Check out the video here!

4. Phil Hare, Illinois Congressman. This venerable congressman was asked by some of his constituents where in the Constitution the federal government has the authority to require people to purchase private health insurance under ObamaCare. The congressman's incredible reply? "I don't worry about the Constitution on this, to be honest. I care more about the people who are dying every day because they don't have health insurance." He then goes on to say that the Constitution affirms our "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." After his astute constituents remind him that he is actually quoting the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, he looks annoyed and says, "It doesn't matter to me." (The Constitution? What's that?) When he is once again asked about the constitutionality of ObamaCare, he replies "I don't know." Check out the video here.

5. Bob Etheridge, North Carolina Congressman. This fine, upstanding congressman was accosted by two college students and asked whether he supported the Obama agenda. Etheridge went nuts, as anyone with his sense of entitlement doubtless would. He asked "Who are you" about 12 times, tried to knock the camera out of the one of the student's hands, grabbed the other student's wrist and wouldn't let go, then grabbed the student around the back of the neck. (How dare you question me! I've been in Congress 14 years and I'm not accountable to anyone!) The entire assault was captured on video here.

6. Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas Congresswoman. This caring congresswoman had to take a couple hours out of her busy schedule to talk to the little people at a town hall meeting, so you can't really blame her for being on her cell phone in the middle of the meeting while a constituent is asking her a question. This unbelievably disrespectful behavior was captured on video here.

7. Alcee Hastings, Florida Congressman. Back in March, the Democratic Congress was trying everything in its power to muscle ObamaCare through against the wishes of the American people, and one of the clever ideas they came up with was the "deem-and-pass" rule. This rule would have allowed the House to vote on a parliamentary procedure to "deem" ObamaCare passed without ever actually voting to pass ObamaCare directly. (The American people are way too stupid to figure out what we're doing!) Of course, some of the usual suspects had to bring up concerns about "transparency" and "rules" and all that rot, but a Florida congressman and impeached federal judge Alcee Hastings had a response for that! Quoting in part from Thomas Edison, he says, "There ain't no rules around here. We're trying to accomplish something. And therefore, when the deal goes down, all this talk about rules, we make 'em up as we go along." See the video here.

8. Pete Stark, California Congressman. Congressman Stark has been one of the most outrageous members of Congress for a long time (38 years to be precise). A few years ago, he said that U.S. soldiers in Iraq were blowing up innocent people for the President's amusement. Last year, at a town hall meeting, a senior citizen spoke and lit into ObamaCare, concluding with the statement "Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining." Stark's reply: "I wouldn’t dignify you by peeing on your leg. It wouldn’t be worth wasting the urine.” This exchange occurred in the first two minutes of this video. Just a few weeks ago at another town hall meeting, a constituent asked Stark how ObamaCare was consistent with the Constitution, and asked if Stark believed there were any constitutional limits whatsoever on the federal government. Stark's reply? "The federal government can do most anything in this country." The questioner replied, "You sir, and people who think like you, are destroying this nation." The video is well worth watching.

9. Ciro Rodriguez, Texas Congressman. While talking to his constituents, Congressman Rodriguez recites standard Democratic talking points about the CBO numbers and the deficit, and then when a constituent challenges him by pointing out the CBO numbers are now being revised downward, he gets angry, slams his papers down on the table, and yells at the constituent. See the video here.

These are just some of the most outrageous examples, but are far from the only ones. It is sickening to me to see the arrogance, the sense of entitlement, the condescending attitude toward constituents that ooze from these elected Democratic officials, and many others like them. And of course, I haven't even brought up New York Congressman Charlie Rangel, until recently the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, who has been charged with 13 serious crimes, including tax evasion and abuse of power. Or California Congresswoman Maxine Waters, who is accused of violating ethics rules by intervening with federal regulators to get bailout money for a bank in which she and her husband had significant ownership. These congresspeople really seem to think the taxpayers' money is their own personal slush fund to use for their own enrichment. Then, of course, there is Democratic multi-millionaire Senator John Kerry (and recent Democratic presidential candidate), who never misses an opportunity to raise taxes on the rich, yet docks his multi-million dollar yacht in Rhode Island to avoid a six-figure Massachusetts tax. There is Obama's political team using job offers to try to coax Democrats out of Senate races in Pennsylvania and Colorado.

There is elitism and a sense of entitlement on both sides of the political aisle, no doubt, but right now it's the worst among the Democrats that I've ever seen. I don't think Congress has ever created a major new entitlement like health care that has been so strongly opposed by a majority of the American people. I can't say how important I think it is that voters send the strongest possible message to the Democratic party in November. These out-of-touch politicians need to learn that they cannot openly ignore or ridicule our concerns, ignore the Constitution, and misuse our tax dollars without serious consequences. Many, many of our elected officials think their job is to be our master, not our servant -- to tell us what to do rather than listen to us and represent us. They only serve at our pleasure, and hopefully many of the people mentioned in this article will no longer be in Congress after the election. For the sake of our country, let's pray that is the case.

Hope and Change Is Code for Threats and Intimidation

Check out this article in the Washington Examiner. As I noted in an earlier post, numerous large American corporations have announced in the last few days that ObamaCare is going to significantly raise their costs to provide prescription drug coverage for former employees, possibly resulting in loss of benefits. Obviously, this doesn't quite fit with the Democrats' preferred narrative about their health care bill, so they've decided to fix the problem by hauling those companies' executives before a congressional committee and demanding they release all internal documents relating to the impact of the health care bill on their costs. The goal is to intimidate these companies into keeping silent about ObamaCare and to discourage other companies from saying anything critical about ObamaCare in the future. The Democrats are using the full powers of government to force private companies and citizens to keep their mouths shut, Soviet style. OK, maybe not quite Soviet style yet. But definitely Chicago thug-style. These companies are now between a rock and a hard place. By failing to disclose changes that could have a negative impact on their bottom line, they open themselves up to investigation, penalties, and prosecution by the SEC. By disclosing those changes, which happens to reflect poorly on the Democrats' health care legislation, they open themselves up to a partisan witch-hunt by our esteemed Democratic Congress. And we wonder why American companies aren't hiring....

You Tell Me

If the new health care bill passed by the Democrats is such a great bill, then why has the U.S. Congress exempted themselves from being covered by it? Why did the Capitol Hill staffers who wrote the bill write an exemption for themselves into the bill as well? If it's good enough for us, why is it not good enough for them?

You tell me.

If, as the Democrats tell us repeatedly, the need for health care reform is urgent because many people are dying without access to health care -- well then, why do the major provisions of this bill not begin to take effect until 2013 (conveniently after the 2012 presidential elections). We know people have an urgent need for access to immediate life-saving health care, so we have passed a bill that will cover them in 3 or 4 years, after they're already dead. Apparently the only thing urgent about the health care bill for the Democrats was claiming immediate political victory by passing some bill. Is this really even about helping the uninsured at all?

You tell me.

When asked about the lawsuit that a number of state attorneys general are bringing against ObamaCare for being unconstitutional, the White House domestic policy chief responded by saying, "If you want to look in the face of a parent whose child now has health care insurance and say we're repealing that . . . go right ahead." Hmmm. The only problem with that is that every child in the U.S. is already covered by a government insurance plan called SCHIP, provided that child's family income is under a certain level. That income level is $55,125 or more for a family of four in every state except for five very low-cost-of-living Western states. It is $88,200 in New York and New Hampshire. So is Obama's administration just lying, claiming it's about the children when really the bill does nothing for them? Or does he believe that our tax dollars should pay for children's health insurance when their parents make more than $88,200 per year?

You tell me.

In an interview with ABC News, Vice-President Joe Biden said regarding the health care bill, "You know we're going to control the insurance companies." Democratic Congressman John Dingell said in a radio interview, "The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people." Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said, "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings said, ""There ain't no rules here, we're trying to accomplish something. . . .All this talk about rules. . . .When the deal goes down . . . we make 'em up as we go along." And then there was the President's elaborate signing ceremony for ObamaCare on Tuesday. After receiving a rock star welcome from the partisan crowd and being introduced by Joe Biden with the words "This is a big f***ing deal," Obama crowed about how he had finally succeeded where his predecessors (he listed them out from Theodore Roosevelt to the Clintons) had failed. Again, is this really about helping the uninsured? Or is this about politicians expanding government power and therefore their own power? Is this about doing what's best for the country? Or is this about using whatever means necessary to pass some bill that will enable them to take credit for "making history" and winning a big political victory?

You tell me.

Time to Go

Here are the names of at least some of the Democratic congressmen running for re-election who voted "yes" on this monstrosity of a health care bill in flagrant violation of the will of their constituents. Every one of these districts is a Republican-leaning district that either supported Bush in 2004, McCain in 2008, or both Bush and McCain. Since Obama's approval rating is running far below his 2008 election performance, we can be virtually certain that ObamaCare is very unpopular in all of these districts. We the American voters MUST make sure that the overwhelming majority of these congressmen are added to the swelling ranks of the unemployed in this country as a result of the November election. Voters must send a message to all politicians everywhere that we will not tolerate what the Democrats have done on health care. If even some of these congressmen get away with their vote, we can expect even more callous disregard for public opinion in future decisions of Congress. To ensure that government in this country remains "by the people and for the people," it is extremely urgent that most or all of these members lose in November:

1. Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-1)
2. Harry Mitchell (AZ-5)
3. Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-8)
4. Jerry McNerney (CA-11)
5. Dennis Cardoza (CA-18)
6. Loretta Sanchez (CA-47)
7. John Salazar (CO-3)
8. Betsy Markey (CO-4)
9. Allen Boyd (FL-2)
10. Alan Grayson (FL-8)
11. Ron Klein (FL-22)
12. Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24)
13. Melissa Bean (IL-8)
14. Deborah Halvorson (IL-11)
15. Bill Foster (IL-14)
16. Joe Donnelly (IN-2)
17. Brad Ellsworth (IN-8) - actually running for Senate instead of for re-election
18. Baron Hill (IN-9)
19. Leonard Boswell (IA-3)
20. Bart Stupak (MI-1)
21. Mark Schauer (MI-7)
22. Gary Peters (MI-9)
23. Tim Walz (MN-1)
24. Dina Titus (NV-3)
25. Carol Shea-Porter (NH-2)
26. Tim Bishop (NY-1)
27. John Hall (NY-19)
28. Scott Murphy (NY-20)
29. Bill Owens (NY-23)
30. Bob Etheridge (NC-2)
31. Earl Pomeroy (ND-AL)
32. Steve Driehaus (OH-1)
33. Charlie Wilson (OH-6)
34. Mary Jo Kilroy (OH-15)
35. John Boccieri (OH-16)
36. Kurt Schrader (OR-5)
37. Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-3)
38. Chris Carney (PA-10)
39. John Spratt (SC-5)
40. Ciro Rodriguez (TX-23)
41. Solomon Ortiz (TX-27)
42. Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
43. Tom Perriello (VA-5)
44. Gerry Connolly (VA-11)
45. Alan Mollohan (WV-1)
46. Nick Rahall (WV-3)
47. Steve Kagen (WI-8)

Don't get me wrong -- there are probably a lot more Democrats who voted for the health care bill that can be defeated as well. But here are the ones that voted most flagrantly against their constituents. They must go.

On the Precipice

So we are now on the "precipice" of health care reform, to quote the Anointed One. Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted to enact a "deem-and-pass" rule with regard to the Senate health care legislation. This means that the Democrats on Sunday plan to pass the Senate bill without voting on it. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this is how things work in Obama & Pelosi's wonderful new world of transparency and accountability. You don't actually have to bother voting on legislation anymore. You just "deem" it passed, and voila! It's passed.

Democrats point out that the "deem-and-pass" rule has been used in the past by Republicans. It's true -- but always to make minor, non-controversial legislative changes. It has never been used as a way to bypass a floor vote on a major, stand-alone, controversial piece of legislation. But regardless of who has used it in the past, it is clearly unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly specifies that a bill cannot become law until it is passed by an up-or-down vote by both houses of Congress. (Why would they let the Constitution stand in the way of their agenda? Remember, if the gate is closed they can pole-vault in!) Furthermore, this shows the Democrats' utter contempt for the public's intelligence. Do they really think that voters will be fooled if they vote for a rule to deem the Senate bill passed without actually voting to pass the Senate bill? Do they really think we're that stupid?

I have already specified in previous posts why both the content of the legislation and the process the Democrats are using to ram it through are corrupt and harmful to our country. The bill is full of budget gimmicks that enable it to score as "deficit reducing" according to the CBO. It's "deficit reducing" because it steals $500 billion from Medicare, reduces Medicare physician reimbursements by 22%, and offsets 10 years of revenues by 6 years of costs. Anyone who thinks creating a new (nearly) trillion dollar entitlement program is going to reduce the deficit is clearly not running mentally on all cylinders.

One of the saddest things for me is to see how unprincipled and spineless most of the Democrats in Congress are. Many congressmen who have had strong pro-life voting records for decades are giving in and voting for this (James Oberstar, Dale Kildee). Many, many congressmen have expressed their strong dislike for many elements in the Senate bill; yet almost all of them are voting for it anyway. Congressman Dennis Kucinich announced he was voting against the bill on principle; President Obama took him for a little ride on Air Force One and now his principles have mysteriously changed. Congressman Jim Matheson used to be against the health care bill. President Obama just happened to nominate Matheson's brother for a judicial appointment, and suddenly Matheson is a "yes" on the "deem-and-pass" rule ("undecided" on the final bill). Rumors are surfacing of a special sweetheart deal for Congressman Earl Pomeroy. If this were a good bill, they wouldn't have to be buying off their own members like this. Several congressmen, such as Stephen Lynch and Jason Altmire, spoke harshly about the "deem-and-pass" rule as a bad idea. Yet both of them voted "yes" on the vote to allow the "deem-and-pass" rule to be enacted. It's a bad idea, but we're voting for it anyway, because we do whatever Pelosi tells us to. Not one of these "undecided" Democrats can be relied on. They rightly point out all the flaws in the bill, but they don't have the balls to stand up to their party's leadership. I am now convinced that the final bill will pass on Sunday, because Pelosi's lapdogs will come when she calls. It's a very sad week for our country.

One of the few bright spots in Congress is Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, one of the most principled politicians in this country. He issued this ultimatum to wavering House Democrats:

I want to send a couple of messages to my colleagues in the House. If you voted no and you vote yes, and you lose your election, and you think any nomination to a federal position isn't going to be held in the Senate, I've got news for you. It's going to be held. Number two is, if you get a deal, a parochial deal for you or your district, I've already instructed my staff and the staff of seven other senators that we will look at every appropriations bill, at every level, at every instance, and we will outline it by district, and we will associate that with the buying of your vote. So, if you think you can cut a deal now, and it not come out until after the election, I want to tell you that isn't going to happen. And be prepared to defend selling your vote in the House.

I don't have much hope this will change the outcome of the vote. But it's good to know that Senator Coburn is trying to expose the incredible corruption going on beneath the surface of the health care "debate."

Spinning the Massachusetts Election

The Democratic spin is working overtime in the wake of the upset victory of Scott Brown on Tuesday. The White House and other Democratic leaders want people to think the only reason Martha Coakley lost was because she was a bad candidate who ran a terrible campaign. Coakley fires back and blames the national Democratic party for not getting involved in the race soon enough. Now, we all know there's nothing more enjoyable than watching a circular Democratic firing squad. But these analyses are ridiculous. I will readily concede that Martha Coakley ran a terrible campaign and Scott Brown ran an excellent, even brilliant, campaign. But that's not the reason Brown won. Brown won because his message resonated with Massachusetts voters, and his message was uniformly conservative -- lower taxes, no government takeover of health care, an aggressive approach to terrorism, and a government more responsive to the people. If it hadn't been for the anti-government mood of voters, which was a direct response to the policies of Democrats running Massachusetts and the federal government, then a virtually unknown state senator named Scott Brown would have never even been competitive. Martha Coakley's gaffes and mistakes did not occur until after the race had already become competitive; they were not the reason the race was competitive. Remember, Coakley was elected to the statewide office of attorney general only about three years ago with 74% of the vote; I didn't hear anybody saying she was such an unelectable candidate then.

The message from the Massachusetts election for Democrats, if any of them are willing to listen, is that voters are angry. They are angry that Obama and Reid and Pelosi are trying to force a massive health care entitlement down their throat that they don't want. They are angry at the hyper-partisan nature of the health care negotiations, with backroom deals and corrupt payoffs in exchange for votes and secret meetings. They are angry at the out-of-control spending. They are angry that no matter how loud the protests, as seen by townhall meetings and a barrage of letters and phone calls and marches on Washington and unfavorable polling, the politicians continue to show indifference and even contempt for their opinion. And they took that anger out on the Democratic party on Tuesday. Obama explicitly campaigned for Coakley as his 60th vote on health care, and even left-wing Massachusetts rejected him.

A few Democrats seem to be getting the message, as seen by the statements by Evan Bayh and Jim Webb yesterday. But for the most part, the Dems remain clueless. Last night, I briefly watched MSNBC, a channel I normally avoid because of its unbelievably blatant left-wing bias. But I was in a victorious mood and wanted to watch the Rachel Maddows of the world squirm a bit at the election results. Shockingly, the folks at MSNBC think it should be full steam ahead on Obama's agenda. First, I watched Maddow interview Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan. Stabenow certainly didn't seem to have learned any lessons from the MA results. She rambled on and on about how it was so hard for the Democrats because no Republicans would reach across the aisle and work with them because the GOP doesn't care about helping people, but the Democrats would do the best they could with the paltry 59 votes they had. Oh yeah, and she whined about how the Democrats needed to get rid of those annoying filibuster rules but unfortunately they didn't have 67 votes (a 2/3 majority is required). Awww. It's a rough life. Then Maddow gave her own analysis, and she was livid that the Democrats seemed to be backing off of health care reform. She accused Evan Bayh and Joe Lieberman, two senators who clearly got the message from the election, of being cowards who wouldn't stand up and fight. In her opinion, so what that the Republicans won one seat? The Dems still have 59, so pass it through reconciliation or whatever. It's as though the election on Tuesday never happened.

I hope all the Democrats in Congress were watching her and take her advice to heart. I hope they try to ram this thing through using reconciliation and keep up their scorched-earth tactics. Because if they do, they will get a shellacking in November that will make 1994 look like a status quo election. I can't wait.

The Party of Corruption

I know that a lot of people think I'm excessively partisan. But frankly, I only consider myself "one half" partisan. I do not believe I am excessively pro-Republican. In fact, one of my posts a couple months ago had some very harsh things to say about the Republican party establishment. I consider myself to be a Republican, but there are plenty of Republicans that I don't like very much and I don't blindly vote the party line. My loyalty is to specific (mostly conservative) principles, not to the Republican party. However, it is true that I am partisan when it comes to Democrats. I am passionately anti-Democrat, especially the Democratic party as it exists today. Here are a few reasons why I think the Democratic party deserves to be known as The Party of Corruption:

1. I am amazed at the way the Democratic party and black leaders have rallied in support of Harry Reid. Reid made an inexcusable statement -- one that is demeaning and insulting to all blacks and also insulting to the American people as a whole. I can't even find a leading Democrat who will condemn Reid's comment at all. Everyone from Obama to Democratic senators to the NAACP keeps saying Reid made a "mistake" or he "misspoke," and then rushes on to say how great Reid is on "civil rights issues," whatever that means. That is not condemning him. It's excusing him. I heard a clip on the radio of Al Sharpton speaking out to defend Harry Reid, and he was laughing and cracking up with people around him while he was speaking. Apparently Al Sharpton thinks it's funny that the Democratic leader in the Senate makes racially insulting comments.

One of the worst hypocrites in the bunch is Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, who back in 2002 said this about Trent Lott's racially insensitive comments: "If a Democratic leader said such a thing, they would not be allowed to keep their position." Of course, Senator Landrieu has no comment about Reid and thus is implicitly supporting him, just like every other Democrat in the Senate. This tells you all you need to know about the Democratic party. They don't care if their leader demeans African-Americans. They act principled when a Republican makes an inappropriate comment, but when one of their own does it they prove that they don't really believe those principles. All they care about is getting their agenda passed. And since Reid is necessary to get health care passed, they will support him no matter what he says.

(Let me a make a side comment about the comparison of Reid to Trent Lott, who was forced to resign as Senate Minority Leader in 2002 after making comments about how our country would have been better off if Strom Thurmond -- who at the time was a segregationist -- had been elected president in 1948. Despite what some are claiming, I think Reid's comments were significantly worse than Lott's. Lott was joking around at Thurmond's 100th birthday party. He had probably had a few beers and wanted to flatter his friend. He never said anything about race or segregation at all, and there's no reason to think it was on his mind. The only way you can find Lott's comments racist is to read into them some sinister intent that was not stated. Reid's comments, on the other hand, were explicitly racial and were in the context of a serious private discussion. If anyone "misspoke," it was Lott, not Reid. But I would note that most Republicans made no real effort to defend Lott, and their lack of support forced him to resign. Note the contrast between how the two parties handled the situation.)

2. Harry Reid is not the only person in a position of Democratic leadership in Congress who is a disgrace. Charlie Rangel has been under investigation for years for various types of corruption, including flagrant tax violations. Rangel is one of the key leaders in the House of Representatives, chairing the powerful Ways and Means Committee. Of course, Democrats rallied around him and allowed him to keep his chairmanship, refusing even to censure him. (Even though they voted to censure Republican congressman Joe Wilson for a much lesser offense of violating congressional decorum.) Again, Democrats don't care what their members do. They can be frauds, cheats, and lawbreakers; as long as they help "advance the agenda" they are welcomed as top Democratic leaders. It is the ultimate "end justifies the means" mentality.

3. Tim Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury, was nominated by Obama and confirmed by Democrats in the Senate, despite owing $34,000 in backtaxes that he failed to pay (until after he was nominated!). Obama also nominated two other people to Cabinet-level positions who were guilty of tax evasion. Again, for the Democrats this is no big deal. It doesn't matter how you break the law, as long as you can advance the agenda.

4. The health care debacle in Congress really shines a spotlight on the Democrats' corruption. As the debate has unfolded, it has become clear that the Democrats will stop at nothing to pass their bill. They paid off various senators for hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in order to secure their votes, and flagrantly violated their pledge of transparency by excluding cameras from the conference deliberations. They showed shocking indifference for the actual content of the bill, forcing quick votes before senators had even had time to read the entire bill, and inserting and deleting provisions at will. They refused any attempt at bipartisanship and displayed complete contempt for the concerns of the American people (as illustrated by townhall meetings and polls). Again, this shows that to Democrats, principles, promises, and even voters don't matter. The only thing that matters is keeping their power and passing their agenda.

Liar

Obama is a liar. It's as simple as that. He promised eight times -- EIGHT times -- during and after his campaign that he would let C-Span cameras into the room to televise all health care negotiations. You can watch him lie through his teeth to the American people over and over again here. Now he and his left-wing cronies in Congress are going back on their word and refusing to allow C-Span or any other television networks in to televise the Democratic health care negotiations. Think they might have something to hide? So much for Nancy Pelosi's pledge to preside over the most "transparent" Congress in history.

Government's Abortion Mandate

Here's a great editorial in The Washington Times today about Ben Nelson's "line in the sand." http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/22/governments-abortion-mandate/.

The whole article is worth reading, but the last paragraph really stood out to me: "Many Americans wanted to believe Mr. Nelson was a decent man of his word, but the senator caved in when his vote could have made a difference for the lives of the unborn. A politician can't get any more despicable than that."

ObamaCare, Part II

Since my last post, the "logjam" in the Senate has been broken and ObamaCare appears well on its way to passage in the Senate. Ben Nelson, the last Democratic holdout against the bill, caved under intense pressure from his Democratic colleagues and agreed to vote for cloture. At 1:19 in the morning, the U.S. Senate voted 60-40 to end debate on Harry Reid's manager's amendment, which essentially re-writes the health care bill (the amendment is almost 500 pages I believe). Not a single Republican voted for this amendment, not even liberal Republicans like Olympia Snowe & Susan Collins of Maine. The final bill will probably be rammed through on Christmas Eve, with little or no debate and no Republican votes. This is health care reform, Democrat-style: votes in the middle of the night, secret amendments, back-door deals, stifled debate, and hyper-partisanship.

Let's talk about Ben Nelson for a moment. Senator Nelson represents one of the most conservative states in the country, Nebraska, a state in which large majorities of voters are pro-life and oppose ObamaCare. Senator Nelson has been elected twice by Nebraska voters by claiming to be pro-life and fiscally conservative. If there were ever a significant test of Nelson's principles, it would be this bill. The Senate bill will use taxpayer money to fund abortions, and it creates a huge new government entitlement that significantly increases taxes and is certain to dramatically expand the deficit as well. Nelson knew both of these things about the bill. He knew that the bill would use taxpayer funds to pay for abortions, and spoke out against it. He also knew the bill was too costly and fiscally irresponsible, and he spoke out against that as well. But in the end, he caved on his principles and disregarded the will of his constituents. And what did he get out of the deal? In exchange for his vote, Harry Reid added language to the bill that binds the federal government to pay the state of Nebraska's share of Medicaid premiums for Nebraska residents in perpetuity, which is worth about $100 million. Awww...isn't that nice? Nelson sells out his principles for $100 million, the public gets Nelson's key 60th vote on a health care bill they don't want, and all federal taxpayers are on the hook to pay the price of Harry Reid's little backroom deal!

Let's be clear: the bill that is about to pass in the U.S. Senate will use taxpayer money to fund abortion. The so-called "abortion compromise" in the bill that managed to secure the support of so-called pro-life Democrats like Bob Casey and Ben Nelson is not a compromise at all. The bill clearly states that federal tax dollars will be used to subsidize private plans that cover abortion on demand. A bookkeeping gimmick in the bill states that abortion charges will be separated from regular premiums, but this is meaningless because the abortion charge is not optional. So any distinction between abortion premiums and regular health coverage premiums is purely a paper distinction and not a real one. (And even this paper distinction only exists as long as the Hyde Amendment exists -- and there is a real danger that the Hyde Amendment will not be renewed by this president and this Congress in the near future.) Further, this bill provides that the federal government will administer a program of multi-state plans that also cover abortion on demand. This is a sharp break from current law, which prohibits any private plans from covering elective abortion if they are part of the Federal Employees Health Benefits program administered by the federal government. Finally, the Senate bill provides authority for the Department of Health and Human Services to require all private health plans to cover all abortions as a "preventive" service. All of these provisions explain why, unlike the House bill, the Senate bill does not prevent taxpayer funds from being used to provide and promote abortion. A conscience protection provision for health providers, which is in the House bill, is also not in the Senate bill. In light of these facts, I don't see how any member of Congress could vote for the Senate bill and legitimately claim to be pro-life. Congressman Stupak, the Democrat who fought courageously to ensure that the House bill did not use taxpayer funds to cover abortion, is angry about this "compromise" and has expressed his strong opposition to the Senate language.

I watched The O'Reilly Factor last night, and I was amazed at some of the claims made about ObamaCare by Mary Ann Marsh, a Democratic strategist. The most amazing thing to me was the fact that this seemingly intelligent woman could appear on TV and say with a straight face that ObamaCare would reduce the deficit. That is laughable. How stupid do you have to be to think that you can create a huge new federal entitlement that is already projected to cost over $1 trillion (and is certain to cost far, far more than that in the long run) and think that it will not significantly increase the deficit? The bill pretends to reduce the deficit because it projects almost $500 billion of cuts to Medicare that will not happen and about $275 billion in reductions in reimbursements to doctors that will not happen. Further, Congress has deceptively made the bill appear much less costly than it really is by arranging to have taxes, and fees, and costs begin to be collected in 2010 while most benefits do not take effect until 2014. Thus, the 10-year $1.1 trillion dollar price tag factors in 10 years of taxes, fees, and costs but only 6 years of benefits. The real, hidden 10-year cost is closer to $2 trillion. You don't reduce the deficit by creating huge new government programs.

Mary Ann Marsh also claims that this bill will reduce taxes for individuals and businesses and promote growth for small businesses. Again, this is a foolish claim. The bill includes more than $500 billion in taxes, and the burden of paying them will fall on both individuals and businesses. Businesses are going down to be weighed down by all the additional taxes, fees, regulations, and burdensome requirements in the bill. This bill is a job-killer and will stifle, not promote, economic growth. There's a reason why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has expressed such strong opposition to this bill.

The House and Senate bills will now go to conference to iron out the differences, and so there will still need to be another vote in both houses of Congress on the final conference version of the bill. If the Senate abortion language is adopted by the conference committee (which I think is likely), are there any Democrats in the House other than Bart Stupak who will stand their ground and vote "no" on a bill that funds abortion with taxpayer money? Or will they all cave like Ben Nelson? We will soon find out.

Change Nobody Believes In

Check out this great article in the Wall Street Journal. This article does an excellent job of explaining both the the terrible content of the Senate health care bill and also the disgraceful tactics of the Democratic majority in ramming it through.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598130440164954.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

The Short But Happy History of ObamaCare

I'm sorry I haven't posted in awhile...life has been busy and I've found that listening to Christmas music is much more soothing than talk radio!

If you look at the polls, you find a steady erosion of President Obama's job approval rating. Back when Obama took office, his popularity was among the highest of any modern-era president and the country's hopes were soaring. Now, recent Gallup & NBC/Wall St. Jrnl polls both have him at 47% approval, the lowest ever recorded for a modern-era president at this point in their presidency (less than one year in office). Polls also show clear majorities of American oppose Obama's signature issues & decisions -- Democratic health care reform, cap-and-trade legislation, bringing terrorist detainees to the U.S., etc. Independents have turned decisively against the President's agenda, which is an ominous sign for the Democrats in next year's mid-term election. Don't even get me started on the Democratic Congress, which has a job approval rating in the 20%'s. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's national job approval rating is 15% (and 38% in his home state of Nevada). Voters are developing a bad case of buyer's remorse as they find out what happens when liberals control the country.

The health care "reform" debacle illustrates clearly how radical, inept, & out-of-touch Democrats are. As I watch the "debate" (back-room maneuvering would be a better word) unfold, I sometimes get the urge to laugh. If the consequences for our country weren't so severe, I would. How can the Democrats manage to botch this legislation so badly when they have such huge majorities in both houses of Congress? How can they be so oblivious to the wishes of their constituents?

Here's everything you need to know about the status of health care reform over the past few months. President Obama announced way back in the summer that reforming health care was urgent (never mind the benefits in these bills don't take effect for four or five years) and that his "drop-dead deadline" for passing the legislation was the end of July, before the congressional August recess. (Because we all know that the most effective way to pass sweeping legislation that overhauls 17% of the U.S. economy is to do it as fast as humanly possible!) Never mind that there WAS no legislation, because the President did not present a plan. Hmmm...well the Democrats didn't quite make their little August 1st deadline, and so they got to go home and hear from their constituents. The townhall meetings were truly democracy in action -- individual Americans getting involved in the political process and letting their representatives and senators know how they felt about an important issue. For this unforgivable sin of exercising their rights as citizens, the Democrats showed their common touch by smearing participants in townhall meetings as "people carrying swastikas" and "brownshirts" (Nancy Pelosi) and "evilmongers" (Harry Reid). Ahh...insulting voters. It works every time. Polls showed that a majority of Americans were increasingly sympathetic with the townhall protestors.

So, having heard the thunderous voice of the American people, Democrats returned to Washington, chastened and ready to modify their bill to address the concerns of their constituents about government control over health care. OK, I made that up. Democrats returned to Washington, more determined than ever to defy their constituents' wishes and push through a massive government-run health care bill by spending nearly a trillion dollars of taxpayer money that isn't there. (That's what deficits are for!) Multiple bills were proposed by multiple House & Senate committees, conveniently enabling the Donkey Party to avoid being pinned down on any specific unpopular provision by saying that some particular version of the bill didn't have that particular provision. Meanwhile, President Obama floated above the fray, appearing around the country at staged venues packed with supporters and giving vague speeches with no specifics but lots of pablum about the "moral imperative" of passing whatever version of the bill the Democrats might eventually decide to settle on.

Finally Nancy Pelosi (a very wise woman) realized that there is only one thing to do when you are contemplating passing a bill against the public's wishes that will establish one of the largest entitlement programs in America's history and will bring 1/3 of its economy under heavy government control. The answer should be obvious. You jam it through with minimal debate and with no bipartisan support whatsoever! And that's exactly what Pelosi did. She unveiled, with much fanfare, a left-wing 2,000-page bill filled with new taxes and mandates and a "robust" public option. She drastically limited debate, allowed only one amendment under protest, and forced a vote at 11:00 pm on a Saturday night. The Democrats have an 83 vote majority in the House of Representatives, and they passed the bill by only 5 votes, with 39 Democrats voting "no" (and only one Republican voting "yes"). Pelosi was visibly joyful as she banged the gavel and announced the vote results. Oh boy, we sneaked one past the American people while they were watching their family night movie!

Then things got really interesting in the Senate. Listening to Harry Reid & Barack Obama discuss whether or not the public option would be included in the bill was somewhat analogous to reading the daily weather report. One day it's in, the next day it's out. One day a Senate committee voted down the public option, and a few days later Harry Reid completely circumvented the committee process and presented a new bill once more containing the public option. Problems started early, as Reid was having a hard time getting even members of his own party to vote to bring this masterpiece to the Senate floor for debate (much less Republicans). However, he solved that problem nicely by offering fence-sitting Senator Mary Landrieu $100 million in financial aid to her state of Louisiana. Landrieu proudly informed her constituents that she really wasn't that cheap and that she had actually secured $300 million in exchange for her vote.

Once the bill arrived on the Senate floor, Senator Harry Reid, the statesman leader of that august deliberative body, set the tone for bipartisanship by comparing Republican opposition to senators who had historically supported slavery and opposed the rights of women and blacks to vote. Debate progressed and amendments were offered, but it was an open secret among Senate insiders that the whole process was all for show. In reality, Democrats were scrambling to get a backroom deal that would secure all 60 Democratic caucus votes so they could invoke cloture and shut down any further debate. Joe Lieberman was a pesky holdout, refusing to support any bill with a public option.

Then, just when you thought it couldn't get any more exciting, Harry Reid made news once again! He breathlessly held a press conference announcing that a deal had been reached on a completely rewritten bill that all Democrats could support, but he couldn't release the details to the Senate or the public. Trust me, it's really good, and no, nobody can read it, why would you ask? What do you think this is, a democracy? He did condescend to mention that the public option was now gone and to be replaced with a drastically expanded Medicare to include people age 55 and up. Within a day or two of Reid's "breakthrough," Lieberman criticized the new bill and announced his opposition to the Medicare buy-in proposal. Oops...we have our whole caucus on board, except for all the members that weren't on board before. If there were any justice in this world, Reid would be gainfully employed with a traveling circus.

Back to the drawing board again. We have to get some bill, any bill, that can barely pass, and who cares what's in it. The content is irrelevant. The main thing is to pass the longest, most expensive bill possible before Christmas. We'll give any Democrat anything they want, just vote for the darn thing! In the meantime, the Left unleashed their big guns on Lieberman. What the heck is this, a Democrat who thinks for himself? Let's attack his wife. Let's demonize him and accuse him of mass murder. And that's exactly what happened to Lieberman.

Finally, Reid backed down and took out both the Medicare buy-in and the public option provisions. Lieberman was back on board -- but now another Democrat, Ben Nelson, was backing out because of the provisions to fund abortion. And here we are, one week before Christmas, with a huge blizzard about to hit Washington, DC, and Reid is still insisting on a vote before Christmas. On a bill that no one in the Senate has even seen yet -- a bill that hasn't even been fully written yet. On a bill that will take eight hours just to read on the Senate floor. On a bill that will cost almost a trillion dollars and dramatically alter 1/3 of our economy. But everyone has to vote "yes" because it's a moral imperative and Obama says so! Don't worry about what's actually in the bill -- we'll get to read it once it's safely passed.

This is not liberty. This is not how representative government is supposed to work. This is tyranny and socialism. This is an audacious power grab by an out-of-control government that is well on its way to bankrupting our country -- right in the teeth of huge popular opposition. The Democrats may well get their way in the end, but they will pay a heavy price for this. Our whole country will pay a heavy price for this.

Democrats vs. Americans

I have been following the ObamaCare debate for several months now, but have not posted anything about it on this blog up till now. That is largely because, being a productive American with a job and a family, I don't really have time to figure out what provision is in which House or Senate bill at any given instant. I mean, let's be honest here. Obama has been talking about his "plan" for months now, but he really has no plan. He has not presented any plan to Congress, and there have been numerous different Democratic plans circulating through various House & Senate committees for months (there are Republican plans too, but not one of them has gotten the time of day from any of the Democratic-controlled committees). I have plenty to say about many of the ideas and provisions in these plans, but what's the point? Because who's to say that any of those provisions will be in the final bill anyway? Why bother to waste time researching a bill that is likely to change dramatically in just a few days or weeks?

I mean, I hope none of you readers have bet any money on whether or not Congress will pass a bill with a "public option" in it. Because if so, I'm sure it's been quite a roller-coaster ride over the past few months. First the public option is a requirement, then everyone says it won't happen, then Obama says he supports it, then he says it's not essential for reform, then we hear that Pelosi insists on it, then we hear that Reid doesn't want it, then we hear that a Senate committee has passed a bill without it, and now lo and behold Reid has re-written the bill and voila! The public option is back! And of course, there are no end of qualifications to a "robust" public option such as triggers and opt-outs for states. And by the way, am I the only one who wonders why Senate committees even bother to go to all the trouble to hold hearings, reach a consensus, and vote a bill out of committee when the Senate majority leader is going to completely rewrite the bill afterwards anyway?

I wish I could say that this whole dog-and-pony show is all in good faith. But tragically, it's not. It's a deliberate attempt to confuse and deceive the American public. Let's cut through all the distraction about the public option and triggers and opt-outs and co-ops. The Democrats are up against two brick walls when it comes to health care reform. The first brick wall is that polls show that 80-85% of Americans are generally satisfied with the current quality of their health care. Yes, they think that some changes can and should be made to reduce costs and increase accessibility to health insurance, but they do not want fundamental changes to a system that already provides first-class quality of care. The second brick wall is that a majority of voters are not stupid, and they do not believe for a minute the Democrats' rhetoric that the government can create a huge new $1 trillion entitlement program without significantly increasing the deficit or significantly increasing taxes. They also do not believe that putting the government in control of health care will either lead to lower costs or higher-quality care. Of course, they're right, and simple logic and some basic knowledge of history confirms that they're right.

So the Democrats have a conundrum on their hands. Given the fact that they are agitating for a huge new government program that most Americans oppose, it would seem they have two options: listen to the American people and back off, or move forward with their agenda against the will of their constituents. Clearly, Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress have chosen the latter option. And their way of pushing this bill through is to muddle the issue as much as possible and tell as many lies and deceptions as possible to keep the American people guessing. Is there any other way to explain why a Democratic committee in the Senate voted down an amendment that would simply require that a final version of the bill be posted on the Internet for 72 hours prior to a final vote in order to make sure that voters know exactly what is in the final bill? If their intentions were honorable and their determination was to serve their constituents, why would they do this? Why has there been this push, push, push to pass some bill --any bill! -- as quickly as possible? Obama says it is urgent, but the provisions in most of these bills do not even begin to take effect until 2013! So you tell me why it has to be passed the day before yesterday. You tell me why members of Congress are being arm-twisted to vote in favor of a 1,000+ page bill they have barely even had time to look at.

Look at the bait-and-switch that is going on. The Senate Finance Committee comes up with a conceptual "bi-partisan" plan that has no numbers in it at all and is completely vague about all the details. They get the Congressional Budget Office to look at it and declare that this new government program will save our country $81 billion over 10 years, mostly because the costs are paid for up-front but the benefits do not take effect until 3 years later. Touting this bill as a moderate approach that doesn't increase the deficit and doesn't include a public option, the bill passes committee with all Democrats and one Republican voting for it. And then, a week or so later, suddenly we find out that Senate majority leader Harry Reid has completely rewritten the bill and it now includes the public option! (And by the way, the "opt-out" provision for states is a complete joke. Every state's taxpayers have to pay for this public option, so what state is going to deny them the benefits of it by opting out? I assure you, the taxes to pay for this option will not be optional.) So first you get the CBO to certify that the bill won't increase the deficit, and then you completely rewrite it to include an extremely expensive public option. And now I'm sure we'll see a big push to get "consensus" and push this bill through as quickly as possible. What a pathetic attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of American voters.

The way that Obama and congressional Democrats have tried to bully Americans into accepting their health care plan is truly disgraceful. When American citizens turned out in large numbers at townhall meetings to exercise their constitutional rights to petition their government and participate in democracy, they were villified and accused of being Nazis, "evilmongers," brownshirts, and thugs by leading Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. When health insurer Humana sent out a letter warning its Medicare customers of potential effects of ObamaCare legislation, the Obama administration gave them a gag order and opened an investigation into their company. And of course, Obama has especially targeted news organizations like Fox that have not properly fallen into line behind the president.

These are not the tactics of statesmen who want to be transparent and accountable to their constituents. These are the tactics of deceitful demagogues and power-hungry politicians who are determined to get their way and increase their power, regardless of what their constituents want. They think they can get away with it. I hope that the American people will prove them wrong, both by mobilizing now to oppose this bill and by voting all these bums out in the 2010 elections, starting with Harry Reid.

Creigh Deeds, VA candidate for Governor, on Taxes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vE6d36a2gso