RALEIGH— And so it came to pass that in the Winter of 2010 a mighty blizzard fell upon the lands and buried the Government in the depths of snow. The snow was the most in 88 years and swept across the entire country. A second blizzard followed and piled an additional yard of snow on top of the nations capital.
And while the nation retreated to the warmth of their homes stubborn arrogance had time to gather its resolve.
Mr. Obama has chosen the path of most resistance. The most resistance in politics, the most resistance to the nation and the desires of the people of the nation. He has chosen this path in an election year. And, as a vengeful politician he is choosing the path of national television in attempts to marginalize and dismiss the desires of the American people.
After the victory of Scott Brown in Massachusetts the message seemed loud and clear. Health Care reform was dead. Unfortunately Mr. Obama didn’t get that message.
Mr. Obama had campaigned for health care reform for a year and has given countless speeches. Yet even still Mr. Obama believes the American public is against the reform because he has not said enough. The last time a president took this approach, Mr. Obama had some sage advice.
Yet to keep in line with the party policy for marginalizing and dismissing the minority as the “party of no”, Mr. Obama has chosen to televise his political attack. The entire nation will be treated to outright falsehoods as Mr. Obama thumps three health care reform bills written to the exclusion of the minority party and their current ideas; his own personal Health Care bill, Mr. Reid’s bill and Mrs. Pelosi’s bill. Mr. Obama will accuse the minority party of being the party of no ideas, while failing to highlight at least two bills, Paul Ryan’s Roadmap and Mr. Anderson and Mr. Troy’s “Small Bill Proposal for Sensible Health Care Reform” which represent some of the ideas of the minority party.
If it does so happen that these two minority party bills are mentioned, the precepts in these bills will be attacked. They will be attacked with the same harshness and illogic which Mr. Obama claims were aimed at his ideas. They will be dismissed with curt irrationality just as Mr. Obama has complained that his three bills have been dismissed. And the entire country, the entire world, will get to view this disgrace live.
America will not be better for it.
TennesseePaul
Stephen VanNuys
Brooklyn Daniel
The Freedom Thinker
I’m glad I don’t have TV…
What? No TV? How are you going to watch all the violence and smut or the non-political programming?
But hopefully anyone watching this televised farce will recognize the true Obama and understand the threat that this man and his puppet masters pose to the Republic.
Scott Brown has proved a disappointment for conservatives, by the way, when he joined with Maine’s two RHINOS (Sen.’s Snowe and Collins) in voting to move Harry Reid’s new pork-laden “jobs bill” up to a vote.
Love the poster, TP – Obama to a “T”.
Brown a disappointment? I’m thinking too many people were expecting a guy with a liberal track record and liberal stances espoused in his campaign to be more conservative than he was. So far as I have seen he has proven to be true to his word. My hope for the man was merely that he would stop Obamacare. The rest of it… a yes vote for Democrats even if Brown had lost and the other person had won. Basically there was only one vote I will be watching for from him. The rest I chalk up to him being from Massachusetts.
It’s a throwaway vote for him though since the “jobs bill” will likely not pass anyway. So he gets to look bipartisan while not screwing things up in actual fact. on the other hand he is definitely not a conservative as I count conservative, but is heap better than the alternative.
I don’t understand this though…
Why would even Dems in Mass. oppose Obamacare but be for a Jobs Bill. It’s the same beast with a different name…
Government spending and government control.
Why would Dems in Mass. vote in Ted Kennedy for ages even after he murders a person? They’re from Mass.
I haven’t read much on the Jobs bill, but I will say I didn’t realize it was a bill sanctioning the Government take over of one sixth of the economy. I’d like to read more on that point if you could provide it.
I think the overall difference is, A) people care about their health. B) People realize the government delivers poor products. People put A and B together and conclude the government will deliver poor health to them and from there realize that if you haven’t got your health you haven’t got anything and so the vote against health care. While a “jobs” bill, or otherwise known as the fifth stimulus bill, is a bastardized attempt at addressing what is top priority to the American voters. The economy.
Dems attempted to spin Health Reform as a key component of addressing the economy. American’s didn’t buy it. They lived through it. They watched. No one saw the national and global economy collapse because of un-paid ER bills and high premiums. Everyone saw speculative real estate buying, liberal lending, free money and government initiatives and mandates pushing everything off the cliff. It resulted in the financial industry collapsing. Not the health care industry. And from that everyone lost their jobs and asked the government to focus on the economy, which brings us to the “Jobs Bill.”
The jobs bill is not a bill, from what I have read, that I could be totally behind. But much like health care reform, I have no problem with the idea of addressing the economy or addressing health care reform. My problem is with the solutions that have been presented by the extreme radical lunatic liberal fringe that is drawing up the plans.
As to Brown, at least he has halted one massive problem, health care. That was an entitlement. That would have crippled the nation for eternity. Again, I haven’t read much on the Jobs bill, but I have not heard of it setting up a new entitlement. Foolish as it appears to be, it doesn’t appear to be codifying unyielding and unrelenting fiscal problems through unfunded liabilities and over the top entitlement promises.
I don’
t know what happened to the rest of that post… oh well.
Ha ha, that ending was funny. I lost a comment yesterday that I didn’t bother rewriting.
I’m not saying the jobs bill is as “big” as the medical bill. However, the medical bill is for an already established service the government already controls 50% of health care monies through Medicare and Medicaid. But that’s not the point either.
It’s not the size of something that makes something wrong or right. For example, is a liar that lies all the time worse or more less trustworthy then a liar that lies some of the time? At least a liar that lies all the time can be trusted to lie. The government needs to back off a jobs bill is just more of the same – government spending and government control. Brown is the liar that lies some of the time from my perspective. Can he be trusted no he used the medical bill to get elected and then begins buying power with his support for the job bill. It just slows down the boiling pot we are cooking ourselves in making it all that much more comfortable while we relax in the hot tub of our demise.
Mass also already has universal healthcare/public option – so their people receive no additional benefit, just additional people to have to support through Federal tax dollars.
I agree, FT. Government spending and government control are the name of the game for the Democrats and the “jobs bill” smells of the same pigsty.
Guess we should be grateful that we do not have a complete idiot as the new Senator from Massachusetts. Still, without some sort of fiscal sanity we are still careening madly down the road to economic and social destruction.
I would give Brown time, he may not disappoint! He may prove to be an idiot as well. Or at least a great politician which generally falls in line with idiocy.
Very cynical indeed. I’m not a big Brown Booster. I like what his campaign represented, a statement against the current Health Care Reform bill. I enjoyed the alternate implications: a Republican winning in a Democrat’s land. A republican winning Ted Kennedy’s seat. And to wrap it all up, a Republican winning Ted’s seat by campaigning against the very thing Ted “wanted.” And after all that “pass this Health Care Reform for Ted” talk coming out of the Dem party ranks. What a slap in the face by the people of Massachusetts. Other than that, I figure he’s only got two years in office since he won in a special election. I could see him being easily ousted in the next election by a typical Massachusetts liberal. My hope is that by then the rest of America has picked up the slack and elected in better leaders so Massachusetts’ return to, or at least continued idiocy doesn’t tank the entire country.
HA! I love it.
Pretty much anyone in Massachusetts no matter side of the aisle they are on that I talk to generally tell me that they believe the election was more of a referendum on Martha Coakley as a disappealing Senate candidate. I didn’t fully believe this until I talked to a number of Independents who said that she was specifically the reason they voted for Brown.
BMM: I talk to generally tell me that they believe the election was more of a referendum on Martha Coakley as a disappealing Senate candidate
Practically every one else in America viewed it differently, which is what made his campaign so exciting and brutal.
But the exit polling data tends to disagree with the assessment about broad across the aisle disdain for Coakley. 12% support for Brown among Democrats, with well over 80% of democrats voting for Coakley. Plus, trending the polling data over time shows Coakley tanking right at the height of the Health Care Bribing in Congress. Like you said earlier, Mass. doesn’t care or have any driven desire to see Federal HCR as written because it only increases the burden without increasing the gains.
I’m sure she was a disappointing candidate. But would any Democratic candidate be appealing when Democrats are in front of the nation bribing each other with billions of dollars to pass a solution which will burden the voter more while providing nothing in return?
I watched as much as I could stomach today…maybe 30 minutes worth. Obama certainly did a lot of the talking. Unless things improved dramatically I think you may have hit it on the head.
Chuck
“Obama certainly did a lot of the talking”
Has he stopped yet? I know he started sometime around January 2007…
I read the FactCheck.org summary of this thing to see how badly both sides went in their and lied. Surprisingly, they only got on Republican’s a couple of times while they had some good zinger’s on the Democrat’s and particularly Obama. I hear the Dems did most of the talking so perhaps that is why the lies were lopsided. Really that’s all a politician needs to do today is just keep their mouth shut. It’ll make them the most honest person in the room.
HA! Too true…
It was truly political theater at its finest. I am guessing that it fooled no one however….
What it really did was set up the Senate to vote HC through on a simple majority. They got Republican inputs after all, so what is the big deal…right?
Good discussion, guys. I agree with the takes I’ve been reading in the media on this- the Republicans basically won b/c they came off as well studied, credible, reasonable, and in favor of what the majority of Americans are in favor of- incremental reform. All the while, the Dems kept debating anecdotally using stories, etc. to win their hearts of the viewers (to the extent there were any). Thankfully, I did not watch much of this. Just a few clips and read some headlines. Sounded overall like a collasle bore and an utter waste of time.
This accomplished nothing in my opinion other than giving the Dems an alibi for using a simple majority on the HC bill.
They go our inputs so they will now claim it to be a bi-partisan effort…whether it is or not.
This is not but well staged theater.
You know, this is entirely unrelated to the above, but since this post has so many people’s attention, I thought I would share something that I just read that I thought was remarkably odd, petty- but somehow incredibly funny to me.
So Jay McGwire has written a book about his older brother, Mark McGwire, where he talks about Mark’s steroid use in the 1990′s. Mark is upset and said he doesn’t talk to Jay anymore and wishes the book hadn’t been written.
I was reading an article about it just now on ESPN.com. Got to the end of the article and they described why Mark and Jay stopped talking in 2002. Here it is:
“The brothers haven’t spoken since 2002. They fell out after Jay McGwire’s stepson, Eric, tickled Mark and caused Mark to spill coffee on himself. Mark then swatted Eric on the backside. Jay’s wife, Francine, then refused to attend Mark’s wedding.”
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
That must have been one heck of a swat Mark put on that kid to tear apart the family like that. Probably wasn’t a good thing to do, clearly. But man, the writer probably should have made it sound worse then “swat,” though, and should have put a bunch more context around that b/c this sounds unbelievably petty.
Ahhh. Ok. Just had to share. Here’s the link:
Ha ha – kid “tickled” Mark and he swatted him – so now the family doesn’t speak. Ha ha!
I’m sorry, I really am. I just think that’s hilarious. The author did a miserable job on that little anecdote. Maybe I’m just tired from a long week of work, I don’t know…
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4946726
Maybe we can get their kid to go tickle Obama as he is trying to sign the HC bill into law….