They apparently believe, cowards that they are, that they can vote no and thus get a pass from their constituents come November. But it is these cowardly SOBs who made it possible for Pelosi to be Speaker in the first place and effectively control the legislative agenda of the nation.
Pelosi, after lots of head-counting and strategizing with her brain trust, gave these guys a free pass to vote no. She added up the numbers and came to the conclusion that by voting no now, these "renegades" survive politically to vote "yes" for her next year. These fence-straddling no voters, in other words, are Pelosi's biggest enablers. It is precisely these 34 "no" democrats who need to be turned out - along with a select few others, of course. Come fall, Republicans need to campaign against these guys as Pelosi enablers.
These phonies will posture during the upcoming election, of course, that they stood up to the powers that be; nothing is further from the truth and they mustn't be allowed to get away with claiming otherwise. The break-away democrats were allowed by the goddess to vote no; allowed to posture about their agonizing struggles of conscience; allowed even to publicly challenge the leadership. It was all an act, a well-thought out, carefully orchestrated charade. Come January, these brave souls will vote Pelosi back into the Speaker's chair and the agenda to dismantle America will continue apace.
Turn 'em out. Turn 'em out now.
12 comments:
That's a great point, Bill. This is something we tend to forget. D.C. is the most cynical place in the world. Everything is a calculation. Of course, they'll all say, "Oh, I have the greatest respect for the speaker, she's well motivated, she cares about the American people. . ." In fact, she's evil, and they're willing to sell their souls to her.
just out of curiosity, which republicans did you want to get rid off after the medicare prescription drug vote in 2003?
The ones who voted for in support of Bush and DeLay, or the ones who voted against it, who decided to stand up for their principles rather than succumb to pressure from the leadership?
Tom, to assuage your curiosity, here you go:
This isn't really very complicated, after all. I always, always vote Republican, straight ticket. Not because I agree with every vote any given individual may cast, but because if Republicans hold a majority, you get a Republican speaker. And on balance, that's a better thing than a having a socialist speaker.
If there's a better (i.e., more conservative) Republican available in a given district who is a slam-dunk to retain a seat, then I would not be opposed to turning out the more moderate for the more conservative choice. If it's a matter of a moderate Republican or a democrat, well, that's absolutely a no-brainer. The game isn't about individual votes on specific issues (not that those aren't important); the real game is about who controls the body. I thought that was at the very least implicit in my post.
Tom, I can't help but suspect that lurking somewhere behind your question is the presumption of parity between liberals and conservatives. You seem to be implying that if Bill is correct in his assertion that Nancy Pelosi gave certain Democrats permission to vote against Obamacare, because she had enough votes and these guys were in jeopardy of losing in November, then certainly Denny Hastert did the same thing when it came time to vote for the Bush drug bill. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
I say this, not because I know of any specific conversations between any of the above parties, but precisely because I know that there is no parity between liberals and conservatives. When Bush proposed his fascist drug scheme, he knew going into it that all true conservatives would oppose it on principle. His challenge was not to get enough loyal Republican to vote for it; it was to add enough Democrats to offset the Republicans who would never vote for such a thing.
The issue this past Sunday afternoon was entirely different. Only those Democrats heralding from entrenched bastions of liberalism (such as Pelosi) will be safe in November. All others voting for this fascist health care takeover are vulnerable. Knwoing this, Pelosi was happy to settle for a 3-vote margin of victory, just enough over the top that no single Democrat can be accused on being the deciding vote. Once 219 votes were found, it was no problem for the others to vote 'no' in a CYA-move for November. No Democrat objected to this bill on Constitutional grounds, including the phoney baloney so-called Pro-life Democrats and Blue Dogs. Every one of them needs to be removed from office this November for their complicity in moving our country inexorably toward a Soviet-style totalitarian state.
Assuming a big beef is the mandate which I agree is a legit beef, I do hope you realize that the mandate was originally a republican idea. Matter of fact, Newt promoted it in one of his books. On page 276 in his book "real change ..." he says we should mandate insurance for anyone above a certain income level, offer subsidies, and for those who do not want to participate, force them to pay some kind of bond. \\In his 2005 book, "Winning the Future...." he says, "4. You have the right to be part of the lowest-cost insurance pool and you have a responsibility to buy insurance. We need some significant changes to ensure that every American is insured, but we should make it clear that a 21st Century Intelligent System requires everyone to participate in the insurance system.
[...]
People who for libertarian reasons do not want to be insured should be required to post a bond so their health care costs will be covered if they have an accident or an expensive illness.
I only point this out to show you that these are not exactly new ideas or liberal progressive ideas. You know full well the liberals much prefer single payer or the very least a public option.
I know in 2009 Newt lost a certain amount of respect from you guys because he was photographed next to Rev. Al, but I have a feeling you still liked him when these books were written. It's amazing now that there is a mandate, Newt comes out totally against it.
Newt Gingrich is a traitor to conservatism and a statist. An opportunist and a total sellout. His soul is scrambled. I've been saying this ever since he sucked up to Jesse Jackson shortly after the "Republican Revolution," and that was 15 years ago. The man is damaged goods. He does not speak for informed conservatives. So you'll have to do better than that to tie Republicans to socialized medicine.
Newt is an inside-the-beltway political hack. We have all stated as much on this blog. The final straw for us was his support of the Bush-Paulson bail-out bill. I could care less about his photo op with Rev. Al. His capital has been diminishing with us for quite some time. What you have pointed out only goes to show how far he has strayed from true conservatism and why we have demanded that he walk the plank.
And here I thought the Republicans had been shut out of the process in reforming health care.
http://grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=25912
Everyone has acknowledged that some Republican ideas got into the Obamacare bill. That is not disputed. Obviously, no ideas from the Blair House meeting got in, since the bill that passed Sunday was unchanged from the Christmas Eve bill. The point is not about specifics such as the Grassley matter. The point is the over-all sweep of the bill, particularly concerning the mandates to insurance companies and private citizens. The further point is the general direction this bill takes us -- away from the free market and toward state-control. That is what the battle is really about, not a handful of nuts and bolts.
Tom . . . I pity you and -- to the extent that your response to this current issue is representative -- I fear for this country because you - and most voters seem to think the debate is about healthcare.
In these blog comments, we seem to come back to the same place again and again: Tom scouring the public record to find instances of Republican contradiction and hypocrisy. I'm not interested. That's not where the debate is and I tire of the trivialization of a looming crisis facing America.
This is like Moses debating with the court magicians in Seti's great hall. (No - not comparing myself to Moses here,) Remember the scene in the C.B. DeMille movie with the snakes? Moses reveals the awesome power and might of the lord and the court magicians do a parlour trick replicating Moses' feat. They're pretty satisfied with themselves, but they've utterly missed the point, haven't they?
I'm now bored with this string. Signing off.
and I pity you guys that you live in such a small Glenn Beck kind of world.
Tom, since I never hear Glenn Beck, what exactly do you mean by a "small Glenn Beck kind of world"? If you mean that our worldview is narrow because we believe that the role of the federal government should be limited to protecting our freedoms and enforcing our equal rights under the law, not providing for all our material needs and conducting a totalitarian quest to impose equality of property, lifestyle, and success on the American public, then I guess that is precisely where we live.
Post a Comment