Some Democrats are nervous after last Tuesday’s election
The political fallout from Tuesday’s election is continuing.
As can be seen in this article there are many Democrats who are more than just a little nervous after last Tuesday’s election. While the White House is claiming that these elections were in no way a referendum on Obama’s presidency the election showed a real discontent growing in the American people and Democrats, mainly those in traditionally red states, are worried about voting on controversial White House agenda issues, like healthcare reform.
So these elections may in fact put a crimp in Obama’s agenda. Many Democrats are already beginning to rethink their positions, they know that the public is angry and ready to pounce. While there is no guarantee that the momentum gained last Tuesday will be carried all the way into the 2010 elections, there are certainly some Democrats who fear that it is possible.
In my original post on the election I hesitated to call the Virginia and New Jersey victories a repudiation or referendum of Barack Obama but if these Democrats are now rethinking their positions on the issues perhaps it was a referendum on Barack Obama after all.
Pro-life Democrats still vow to kill healthcare reform bill
With the vote on the healthcare reform bill set for sometime Saturday, pro-life Democrats led by Representative Bart Stupak are still vowing to kill this bill.
Rep. Stupak is leading a coalition of 40+ Democrats who promise to vote against the healthcare reform bill if Nancy Pelosi does not allow a vote on language that Stupak wants added to the bill to ensure that taxpayer funded abortions will not be part of the legislation. Nancy Pelosi has refused to give in and these Democrats are still holding firm in their position that they will vote against healthcare reform.
This pro-life coalition of Democrats is our best hope that the healthcare reform bill will be stopped. So far they are talking a great game, I just hope that when the time comes for action their votes match their talk. Heavy pressure is going to be applied to them to change their vote and fall in line with the leadership. This pressure is guarenteed to increase as the vote grows closer.
If these Democrat truly hold pro-life views– and I think that they do– they will not succumb to party pressure, they will follow their consciences even at the risk of losing monetary support from the DNC. It will be very interesting to see how these Democrats vote. We will be watching.
We have been told over and over again that there is nothing in the healthcare reform bill that would use taxpayer money to fund abortions. The Hyde amendment has been sited as proof that there will be no federally funded abortion but the Hyde amendment is attached to the appropriations portion of the bill and not to the main bill itself. This sets up a loophole that would possibly allow the government to create new agencies that would be able to use federal money to provide for abortion. And let us not forget that because the Hyde amendment is attached to the appropriations portion of the bill that it will have to be renewed every year.
Representative Stupak has been fighting to get language added to the bill that would close any potential loophole and eliminate any chance that federal money would be used to provide for abortions. It would seem to me that if there was no potential loophole and the bill did not provide federal money for abortion that Nancy Pelosi would have no problem adding Stupak’s language, it would just be redundant language. But she has refused to do so and now we may know why.
According to this release the House version of the bill mandates that at least one government run plan will be mandated to cover abortions. If the plan is government run that means the money to run the program comes from taxpayers, we will be funding abortions.
But it doesn’t stop there. The healthcare reform bill also mandates that every person who is enrolled in the public option will be charged a monthly abortion premium. This premium will be used to provide abortions.
We are being lied to by Nancy Pelosi, there will be federally funded abortions in this bill.
Roland Burris claims the “general health” clause in the constitution gives the government the right to mandate healthcare coverage?
When asked where the constitution provided the authority to mandate the American people to buy healthcare insurance this is what Roland Burris had to say:
Well, that’s under certainly the laws of the–protect the health, welfare of the country,” said Burris. “That’s under the Constitution. We’re not even dealing with any constitutionality here. Should we move in that direction? What does the Constitution say? To provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country
There is just one little problem with his statement– the constitution does not say anywhere that the government is to provide for the “health” of the United States. He either made that up or he does not know what the constitution actually says. Which one of those scenarios is worse? I guess that he was trying to invoke the “general welfare” clause. This man is a United States senator– granted he bought his seat– and he does not even know what is in the constitution. One has to wonder if he has even bothered to read it.
Roland Burris showed perhaps a greater amount of ignorance toward the United States constitution than any other sitting politician in congress when he claimed that the constitution says that the government provides for “health” of the American people. These people will stop at nothing in order to find the authority to force the American people to buy health insurance, even making up something that is not there.
I would like to say that my thoughts are with all of the families who lost loved ones at Fort Hood today, as are the thoughts and prayers of all Americans.
I have been listening to the coverage since I found out about this tragedy and it is heartbreaking. I am still astonished and upset that this could happen on a base in the United States.
I am equally astonished at the president of the United States.
On my way home from work today I listened live to the press conference that President Obama held about the Fort Hood shootings and my first reaction was that I thought he didn’t know about the shootings.
Before he bothered to mention the shooting he gave a “shout out.” In light of the grave events I found this to be in incredibly bad taste, in fact I was disgusted by it. President Obama showed more than just a serious lack of judgement, he showed a lack of any sense of dignity and caring for the families who have just lost their loved ones.
New Hampshire student is not allowed to wear his military uniform in his senior picture– Muslim headdress is okay
Jordan Westgate is a senior at Merrimack Valley High in New Hampshire. He submitted his senior photo for the yearbook only to be told by the principal that he could not use the picture because it violated school policy. What was Jordan’s violation? He is joining the army upon graduation, he passed basic training last Summer, and the picture that he submitted was him standing in front of the flag, in uniform wearing his army combat hat.
According to school policy a student is not permitted to wear a hat or use a prop. He wants an exception to be made, claiming that his picture is more respectful than many of the other pictures students have used.
The school policy has been in place for four years and they are unwilling to make this exception for this fine young man. However, in 2007 the school did make an exception for one student. A Muslim woman was allowed to wear her scarf over her face. Here is what the principal had to say about the exception:
I think there’s a difference with religion,” Jette said. “If a Jewish student came here and said he had to wear a yarmulke (for the portrait photograph), we’d have to look at that
In today’s age where there has been a “separation of church and state” read into the constitution that does not exist it would seem to me that the religious symbols should be considered more offensive to the principal than the picture of a man wearing his military uniform. Notice the principal example of the yarmulke? I wonder if a student asked to have his picture taken with a crucifix or a rosary would be accepted. But that is a topic for another day.
It seems to me that the principal is making a political statement with his refusal to allow Jordan to use his military photo. Jordon comes from a military family with a proud military history and he should be allowed to show his pride with his picture.
Were the 2009 elections a repudiation of Barack Obama?
The results on last night’s elections are in and everyone is debating whether these elections were a repudiation of Barack Obama and his policies. Overall this was a good night for Republicans and conservatives with both Virginia and New Jersey’s gubernatorial races going to the Republicans. It was a mixed bag however, with New York 23 and California 10 being won by Democrats.
Going into election day I thought that Republican would win two of what was being considered the big three and I was right. However the two that were won were not the two that I had though. Virginia was pretty much a given according to the polls leading up to election day but I thought Corzine would hold on in New Jersey and Hoffman would win in New York.
Were the results in Virginia and New Jersey a repudiation of Barack Obama? I am not sure; I think that repudiation and referendum might be too strong. Polling data shows us that 25% of voters in Virginia and 19% of voters in New Jersey cast their votes in a protest against Barack Obama. A minority of voters but that still seems like a pretty large amount considering that Obama had won both of those states by large margins over John McCain in 2008.
I am a believer in the famous mantra that “all politics is local” but that isn’t always the case. In the 2006 elections for instance, New Hampshire voters held a large anti-Bush election protest and ushered in a new blue wave of legislators. The number one issue among voters in both Virginia and New Jersey was the economy, so one has to wonder if voting in the Republicans based on the economy was an anti-Obama vote even if the voters in the exit polls didn’t identify it as such. Obama has prioritized healthcare reform at the expence of the economy and jobs. By voting out the Democrats in those states who supported Obama’s lack of an economic plan I would say that there was more anti-Obama sentiment than people realize.
The spin coming out of the White House is that the gubernatorial races are not relevent to Obama’s agenda, and while this is true, the White House put a high priority on these races when both Obama and Biden spent so much time over the last to weeks on the stump in Virginia and New Jersey for the Democrats. Surely, contrary to the spin the administration held some relevance to these elections. Theses election were much more relevent than the White House cares to admit. While these two Republican wins do not affect Obama’s ability to pass his agenda it does send a message to the White House that people are fed up. The voters are growing leery of Obama’s policies and of his administration in general.
As for the election in New York 23, an election that could directly affect Obama’s agenda, the Democrat came out on top. Naturally the White House is using this as a source to declare victory, but was it much of a victory? In the short term I would say that it is. We are hearing that the New York 23 race proves that there is a rift in the Republican party. That is not the way that I see it. For far too long the Republicans have been running Democrat-lite candidates, RINOs, in an attempt to win elections. That didn’t work out so well for John McCain, did it? Republicans and conservatives have begun to take a stand. A little known political novice, Hoffman, through a grass roots effort applied so much pressure to the politically connected liberal RINO that she was forced to drop out before the election. While he just didn’t have enough steam to get over the hump, a message has been sent to Republicans. It is time to return to the conservative base or else. Hoffman was a stepping stone, he was just the beginning and while he failed momentum is building and the Republican had better get their act in gear.
There was little difference between the Republican and the Democrat in New York 23, both candidates were going to pursue Barack Obama’s agenda so this was the perfect spot for conservatives to make their stand. Nothing was lost here with Owens winning election that would not have been lost if Scozzafava had remained in the race and won. In the long run New York 23 could prove to be a win if the conservative movement can keep up the momentum because it has put the Republicans on notice. We will support any candidate regardless of party if he or she is a true conservative.
Republicans winning the governor’s office in New Jersey could prove to be the crowned jewel of the election. This was unexpected even with all of the corruption in that state, hell the corruption didn’t stop Barack Obama from stumping for Corzine. Yet Republican won in one of the bluest states in the country. This has to put moderate, conservative, and Blue Dog Democrats on notice.
While the gubernatorial races do not directly affect the ability of the president to pass his agenda, we have to wonder if it will indirectly affect his agenda. If RINOs, moderate and conservative Democrats, and Blue Dog Democrats sence a possible groundswell of opposition to the president they may not be so willing to support his agenda.
One has to wonder if Obama’s influence is waning also. Just a few short months ago the thought of a Republican resurgence seemed highly unlikely. The republican party seemed dead in the water, yet just one year later even with Obama openly supporting and campaigning for Corzine and Deeds both Democrats lost in stunning fashion. This would not have happened if the American people were not growing leery of the president.
Deep down inside the president and the Democrats in general have to be worried, are the moderate to liberal Republicans, but this will mean nothing unless we can seize the momentum that we gained last night. We must use this as a stepping stone heading into the 2010 elections.
Sure, New York 23 was a loss but gains were still made. We must have patience, remember that it took the Democrats two full election cycles to gain the majorities that they currently enjoy. This is going to be a long process but we began that process last night.
Massachusetts has a special election in January to replace Ted Kennedy, the Democrats are going to win that seat, but we cannot let that slow us down. We must stay on the offensive, these victories will mean nothing if we do not follow them up in 2010.
The Democrats and the media were laughing at the Tea Party protesters but last night they saw us in action and they had better not be laughing any more. We are not going away, this was the opening salvo. We must make sure that there is more to come.
I hesitate to call last night either a repudiation or a referendum on Barack Obama but he has been put on notice, as have the moderate Democrats and RINOs. We are mad as hell and we are not going to take it!
Orrin Hatch questions the constitutionality of healthcare mandates
Democrats have been scrambling to find a constitutional argument for mandating the American people to buy health insurance. Some, such as Steny Hoyer, have argued that the”general welfare” clause gives congress the right to mandate healthcare coverage. Others, Nancy Pelosi, when asked about the contitutionality of healthcare mandates simply says, “are you serious” and walks away without even trying to defend the constitutionality of the proposed mandate. And still others, like Patrick Leahy, just say the authority is there and nobody questions it.
But some people do question it. Orrin Hatch is one of those who question where the constitution provides congress with the authority to mandate healthcare coverage.
I think there’s a real constitutional issue there
Apparently Orrin Hatch did not get Patrick Leahy’s message that congress has the authority and that nobody should question that the authority exists.
Orrin Hatch also worries about the precedent that will be set if the government is allowed to force the American people to purchase a product that some Americans do not want to buy.
he does not believe the Democrats’ health-care reform plan is constitutionally justifiable, noting that if the federal government can force Americans to buy health insurance “then there is literally nothing the federal government can’t force us to do.”
Hatch said if the federal government starts ordering Americans to purchase specific products without being able to plausibly justify that mandate through the Commerce Clause of the Constitution which empowers Congress to regulate interstate commerce, it will mean “we’ve lost our freedoms, and that means the federal government can do anything it wants to do to us
While I agree with this statement about the precedent that will be set, I do take one issue with Orrin Hatch’s statement. He still leaves the door open to the fact that the Democrats may be able to plausibly justify the mandate using the position that the Commerce Clause may make healthcare mandates constitutional.
Joe Wilson says that Obama should be held responsible for Swine flu vaccine shortage
One thing has become extremely evident in regards to the government’s response to the Swine flu and the lack of available vaccinations– the president needs to be held accountable for the unpreparedness that the federal government has exhibited in the crisis that they have been warning us about for almost a year now.
The now infamous Joe “you lie” Wilson is back in the fore front on this issue; in recent comments he has stated that the president needs to be held accountable for his bumbling of the Swine flu pandemic.
This is during the term of the President [Obama], and I believe the president should be held responsible that the government was not prepared, and we have millions of Americans who are at risk today
Meanwhile the government is poised to send millions of doses overseas and inoculate GITMO detainees before all wanting Americans receive their vaccinations. Joe Wilson summed this up as well:
The bottom line is that our first duty is to the American citizen, and there was not proper preparation
It seems simple and obvious enough that the president’s first duty is to the American citizens but when you hear that vaccinations are going to be sent overseas you realize that this administration simply does not have their priorities straight.
This administration has been woefully inept at preparing for a pandemic that they have been warning us about for almost a year. And as Joe Wilson pointed out, this is one fuck up that the Obama administration can not pin on George Bush.
The current administration is solely responsible. They can’t blame this on any prior administration,” said Wilson. “This is the responsibility of the current administration. They’ve put the lives of Americans at risk
Has healthcare rationing already begun in America?
One of the concerns that has been mentioned during the debate on government run healthcare is the debate over whether there will be healthcare rationing. President Obama and other proponents of the healthcare reform bill have denied that ANY rationing would take place under the plan. They have tried to marginalize the people who claim that nationalized healthcare will lead to the rationing of medicine.
In light of the shortage of the Swine flu vaccine I have to wonder if the United States is already in the process of rationing healthcare. Certain groups have been told that they are high risk and that they should get the vaccination immediately but they cannot get it because of the shortage. We have recently learned that doses of the vaccination will be sent overseas before all Americans who want the vaccination receive it. Coupled with the distressing news that GITMO detainees are going to be among the first to be vaccinated we can see that the rationing of healthcare has already begun in America and the healthcare reform bill hasn’t even passed yet. The government is picking and choosing where the vaccination will be sent.
This point was driven home to me last Sunday while I was at a flea market. While browsing at one of the tables I overheard a conversation between an older man and a vendor. This gentleman stated that he had gone to his doctor to get the Swine flu shot but his doctor refused to give it to him because he was over 65. He was not eligible to receive the vaccination. This man appeared to be in perfect health and very mobile and active. He continued to tell the vendor that he had never heard of such a thing, being denied treatment that he wanted. He was incredulous. I am afraid that this example will be all to common after the public option is in place.
Much was made, and is still being made, of Sarah Palin’s use of the term “death panels” to describe the end of life counseling that is still in the final version of the healthcare bill in the House. Sarah Palin was using an exaggeration to highlight a legitimate concern. Under Obama’s healthcare plan people such as this gentleman from the flea market will be denied, and evidentially are already being denied, the treatment that they need. One has to wonder if this man had gone to his doctor after the passage of healthcare reform and was denied the Swine flu shot if he would have been advised to enter “end of life” counseling.
This scenario will not be the exception after the healthcare reform bill is passed, it will be the norm. President Obama officially declared a national emergency over the impending Swine flu pandemic and the government has criminally botched the reaction to this emergency. Swine flu vaccine shortages have led to the rationing of the vaccine.
If the Swine flu pandemic is any indication of how the government is going to run healthcare in general we are all in trouble. The rationing has started even before the government has control over the healthcare industry.
