Conservative Wanderer

“A troubled and afflicted mankind looks to us, pleading for us to keep our rendezvous with destiny; that we will uphold the principles of self-reliance, self-discipline, morality, and, above all, responsible liberty for every individual that we will become that shining city on a hill.” — Ronald Wilson Reagan

Monthly Archives: March 2010

One Democrat Quote I Can Agree With

The WaPo says that Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) is “distancing himself from the biggest legislative achievement of the first black president.”

Rep. Davis (candidate for Governor of Alabama) shoots back:

“I vigorously reject the insinuation that there is a uniquely ‘black’ way of understanding an issue, and I strongly suspect that most Alabamians will as well,” Davis said late last year when he was first criticized for his health-care stance.

I’m not sure where Mr. Davis stands on other issues… on this particular one, tho, I must say I wholeheartedly agree.

Oh, Mr. Davis is black.

Well, He’s Got His…

Remember the Cornhusker Kickback, the payoff to Senator Ben Nelson in the Senate version of the ObamaCare bill?

The second bill voted on by the House last night was a Reconciliation bill which, among other things, extends the Cornhusker Kickback to the entire nation, so that Senator Nelson’s state isn’t specially favored any more.

And, lo and behold, Senator Nelson says he will vote against it in the Senate.

Just another typical “moderate” Democrat, I guess.

It’s Not Over Yet!

I am going to retract an earlier statement of mine. Despite what I said last week, the fight over ObamaCare is not over yet.

The Obamacrats might want to think that it is, that they can go back to their districts and not have to talk about ObamaCare, but they’re in for a surprise, methinks. The American people are almost certainly going to be incensed about this, for many reasons, including the political bribery and arm-twisting, the blatant falsehoods about what the bill will and won’t do, and the absolute disregard for the clearly expressed views of the voters.

Her Pelosiness probably promised wavering Democrats that this would all blow over as soon as it was passed; now the Democrats will learn that they can’t trust this Speaker to have a firm grasp of what’s going on, and that should make it a lot harder for Princess Pelosi to ram through the rest of her far-left agenda.

This bill also will not do what was promised–it cannot, because it wasn’t designed to in the slightest. Thus the Democrats will soon be the recipient of a long and growing tide of disappointment and resentment, which should last at least through 2012, and quite likely longer. The fact that not a single Republican voted for this bill will insulate the GOP, and will make the Democrats the sole recipient of this anger. If it goes on long enough, that could actually weaken the Democratic Party to the point where another party takes its place as a major party.

Going forward, we must now work and vote against every single Democrat up for election to the House or Senate in 2010. Bart Stupak and the rest of the so-called “pro-life” Democrats have shown us that we cannot trust any of them, despite how conservative they might pretend to be. We also can’t have these people voting to give Pelosi the speaker’s gavel again if, by some long shot chance, the GOP doesn’t take the House this year. Some of the Democrats who voted no might think that they can slide through based on that vote, but ask yourself: would they have voted “aye” if it was needed to pass this bill? The defections of Stupak and several of his cronies should give you the answer.

The Democratic Party, as a whole, have thumbed their noses at the American voters. Come November, it will be our turn.

Guess Obama Can’t Buy This Democrat’s Vote

Teehee! The Utah CongressCritter whose brother was nominated for a federal judgeship by President Obama recently in what appeared to be a blatant attempt to buy his vote has declared he’ll vote no:

SALT LAKE CITY — Utah Congressman Jim Matheson announced Saturday he will vote against President Obama’s health care plan.

In a statement, Matheson said the legislation “is too expensive, contains too many special deals, does not contain health care costs and will result in increases in health insurance premiums.”

Matheson said improving health care and providing affordable coverage in Utah will remain “critical” to him, but said he believes supporting the “wrong kind of reform” which will “increase health care costs” will hurt the nation more than it will help.

For those reasons, Matheson said he will vote ‘no’ to the president’s massive health care overhaul. The vote is set to take place in Washington, D.C. Sunday.

Makes me wonder if The Won will now withdraw the nomination of Scott Matheson, Jr. to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (which, in all honestly, he appears qualified for).

The End Is Near

One way or another, the end game on ObamaCare is nigh.

Ed Whelan has kindly put together a list of the direct phone numbers of some 40 House Democrats who might be worthy of a phone call (alphabetized by state, the (S) label indicates they voted for the Stupak amendment):

“Yes” on Obamacare Last Time but Might Want to Switch:

Gabrielle Giffords, (D., Ariz.)—202-225-2542
Ann Kirkpatrick, (D., Ariz.)—202-225-2315
Harry Mitchell, (D., Ariz.)—202-225-2190
Vic Snyder, (D., Ariz.) (S)—202-225-2506
Marion Berry, (D., Ark.) (S)—202-225-4076
John Salazar, (D., Colo.) (S)—202-225-4761
Melissa Bean, (D., Ill.) —202-225-3711
Bill Foster, (D., Ill.) —202-225-2976
Joe Donnelly, (D., Ind.) (S) —202-225-3915
Brad Ellsworth, (D., Ind.) (S) —202-225-4636
Baron Hill, (D., Ind.) (S) —202-225-5315
Bart Stupak, (D., Mich.) (S) —202-225-4735
Michael Arcuri, (D., N.Y.) —202-225-3665
Tim Bishop, (D., N.Y.) —202-225-3826
Bob Etheridge, (D., N.C.) (S) —202-225-4531
Earl Pomeroy, (D., N.D.) (S) —202-225-2611
Steve Driehaus, (D., Ohio) (S) —202-225-2216
Zach Space, (D., Ohio) (S) —202-225-6265
Charlie Wilson, (D., Ohio) (S) —202-225-5705
Chris Carney, (D., Pa.) (S) —202-225-3731
Kathleen Dahlkemper, (D., Pa.) (S) —202-225-5406
John Spratt, (D., S.C.) (S) —202-225-5501
Ciro Rodriguez, (D., Texas) (S) —202-225-4511
Solomon Ortiz, (D., Texas) (S) —202-225-7742
Tom Perriello, (D., Va.) (S) —202-225-4711
Alan Mollohan, (D., W.Va.) (S) —202-225-4172
Nick Rahall, (D., W.Va.) (S) —202-225-3452

“No” on Obamacare Last Time but Might Need Encouragement:

Mike Ross, (D., Ark.) (S) —202-225-3772
Betsy Markey, (D., Colo.) —202-225-4676
Allen Boyd, (D., Fla.) —202-225-5235
Suzanne Kosmas, (D., Fla.) —202-225-2706
John Barrow, (D., Ga.) (S) —202-225-2823
John Adler, (D., N.J.) —202-225-4765
Michael McMahon, (D., N.Y.) —202-225-3371
Scott Murphy, (D., N.Y.) —202-225-5614
Larry Kissell, (D., N.C.) —202-225-3715
John Boccieri, (D., Ohio) (S) —202-225-3876
John Tanner, (D., Tenn.) (S) —202-225-4714
Glenn Nye, (D., Va.) —202-225-4215
Brian Baird, (D., Wash.) —202-225-3536

When you call these people, please, be polite, be gentle, be kind. Remember, the staffers answering the phones are just doing their job, and if you’re rude to them they just might “lose” your message to the CongressCritter.

You might point out to them what Paul pointed out on Powerline yesterday: if this monstrosity passes, it will be a stone around the Democrats’ neck for the next generation, as people remember how easy it was pre-2010 to get into their doctor, get their prescriptions, and get other treatments they need. In short, if the House Democrats think this’ll be over in an election cycle or two, you might just want to inform them that it will probably take a lot longer for this to blow over. Clearly they’re underestimating the power of the fresh dissatisfaction people will feel over and over and over again as a trip to the doctor’s office becomes just as enjoyable as spending the day at the DMV or fighting some other government bureaucracy.

Call, and call now.

A Simple Way To Try And Stop The Slaughter Scenario

For those who don’t know, Rep. Louise Slaughter (ObamaCrat from NY) has decided that she can slip one past the American public with the “Slaughter Rule.” Stripped to its essentials, this would be a “rule” that says that if it’s approved, it would “deem” the Senate ObamaCare bill to have been passed–without there ever having been a vote on the Senate ObamaCare bill itself!

Fortunately, there is a simple way we can fight this idea.

You see, my fellow patriots, the House ObamaCrats are trying to arrange things so that ObamaCare can pass and yet so that they can say, with some minor degree of honesty, “I didn’t vote ‘yea’ on that bill.” By voting for the Slaughter Rule, they think they can fool the voting public.

DO NOT LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT!

All ya gotta do to bring this to a screeching halt is to tell your CongressCritters you’re onto their little bait-and-switch. Call or email them (snail mail is probably too slow, since they’ll be voting on this next week, and you know how inefficient the gubment is) and tell them that a “yea” vote on the Slaughter Rule is worse than a “yea” vote on ObamaCare, because of the dishonesty in the Slaughter Rule.

If you’re not sure if it’s worth your time and effort, just imagine a future where ObamaCare has passed, and your grandchildren are asking what you did to keep it from happening. Would you proudly say that you didn’t think it’d do any good to write or call your elected representative?

It doesn’t take that long, and if enough people do it we can chase the ObamaCrats back under their rocks.

Retiring Democrat Congressmen Aren’t Automatic “Aye” Votes for ObamaCare

The Hill:

Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.) stressed Sunday that the votes of retiring Dems such as himself aren’t necessarily in the bag.

Appearing across from Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.) on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Baird heartily agreed in principle with the need to reform healthcare but expressed reservations about the current bills. He responded “yes” when host Candy Crowley asked if he would vote against the current proposals even if it meant that healthcare reform went down.

Later, Baird continues:

“There’s no question that we need to reform the current system,” Baird said. “The question is, is this the best way we can do reform?”

“The complexity I think worries a lot of people … because they build on an existing complicated system, a hodgepodge,” Baird said.

The Washington congressman shrugged off the idea that his vote would be influenced by a “take one for the team” pressure on retiring lawmakers.

“It has no impact on me whatsoever,” Baird said. “At the end of the day saying do it for political reasons or don’t do it for political reasons makes no difference to me.”

I agree, the current system needs work. But ObamaCare does little or nothing to address the real problems, and does a lot to create more problems. And I am speaking as a person with a disability, which also serves as a pre-existing condition.

Forget Reconciliation; Watch The House

With all due respect to my fellow blogger, I think most, if not all of the reconciliation talk is a red herring.

As Rich Lowry, Jeffrey Anderson, Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), and Yuval Levin have pointed out today, if–and this is the big “IF”–the House passes the Senate bill, which is the first step in reconciliation according to Keith Hennessy, then Obama will have a bill on his desk that’s been passed by both chambers of Congress; at that point, Obama can just sign it and call it “game over.”

Fortunately, right now it looks like Pelosi doesn’t have the votes in the House to pass the Senate bill, especially if Stupak and other pro-life Democrats stand by their promises not to vote for any bill that doesn’t have the Stupak Amendment as part of it (as the Senate bill does not).

However, I would caution everyone to be careful not to get distracted. The key is the House… if the Senate bill doesn’t pass the House, ObamaCare is pretty much stalled.