Say Anything Blog

Friday, March 19, 2010
By Susan Jones, Senior Editor


(CNSNews.com) – Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) had a stern message for wavering Democrats who agree to switch their vote on health care from no to yes: If those lawmakers have been promised special favors for their districts – or if they’ve been promised other federal jobs in case they lose their seats – forget about it.


Coburn said House members who lose their jobs and are nominated for other government posts will find holds placed on their nominations.


Second, Coburn said any promised deals for a lawmaker’s district will be examined and produced as evidence that the lawmaker’s vote was “bought.”


A transcript of Coburn’s remarks follows:


I want to send a couple of messages to my colleagues in the House.


If you (first) voted no (on health care) and (now) 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 ‘til 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.


House leaders and President Obama have been meeting one-on-one with Democrats who voted against an earlier version of the health care bill. They’ve been successful in getting some holdouts to agree to switch their votes.


http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/63058

Seems no one is watching the liberal bobble heads nod their YES HE CAN message anymore.
 

Cable Network Rankings: FNC #2, MSNBC #26, CNN #32, HLN #37 in Prime - mediabistro.com: TVNewser


http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/cable_network_rankings_fnc_2_msnbc_26_cnn_32_hln_37_in_prime_155302.asp

The report will go back to Obama’s earlier days, showing even then his close ties to radical Marxist professors, friends, spiritual advisers, etc. 

It will also reveal details about his ties to Rev. Wright for 20+ years, I.e., how he was participating with this man, and not for the reasons he stated. The report has uncovered more of Obama’s radical past and we will see things that no one in the media is willing to put out there. It will be a segment to remember.

Mark your calendar: 

Sunday night, 8 PM CT; 9 PM ET.
FOX NEWS

Thursday, March 18, 2010

It’s Now or Never   [Ed Whelan] NRO

If you want to make your voice heard on the health-care bill before the House votes on Sunday, you’d better do so quickly. To make things easier for you, here, organized in alphabetical order by state, are the 40 key Democratic members of Congress whom Jeff Anderson and Andy Wickersham identified in a Critical Condition post last week, together with their direct Capitol Hill office phone numbers. (I haven’t kept track of all the developments since then, but it would be useful to congratulate or berate your member, as you see fit, if he or she has firmly adopted a position.)



The “(S)” means that the member voted for the Stupak amendment last fall.


“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

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


03/18 05:53 PMShare

Wednesday, March 17, 2010


Bret Baier   [Seth Leibsohn] NRO


Bret Baier just concluded the single best interview of President Obama in a year, by any reporter.  He was resilient in the face of the president’s obvious attempts to run down the clock by stonewalling; Bret continually hammered a series of questions the president did not want, and yet he was polite in explaining to the president the meaning of the questions just in case they were not what the president was familiar with (see the question about Connecticut for example).  It was a model of how not to be cowed by a strong and charismatic leader and a model of a truly independent anchor/reporter. 

President Obama knew he didn’t have Bret at the very end when his last effort at victimhood was to sarcastically hang his head to the side in response to Bret’s saying he didn’t mean to interrupt, as if Bret were being insincere—which he wasn’t. Anyone who watches the interview can see who was stalling, who was running the clock, who was refusing to answer the questions, and why polite interruption was exactly what was needed.  It was a model.  If any of the MSM can watch it and conclude anything it is that FNC deserves a) its ratings and b) kudos for being truly independent from the herd of faux independent minds, the likes of which Howell Raines seems to esteem. Bret showed the rest of the press how to do it from now on.


03/17 07:36 PMShare

The Associated Press: Idaho first to sign law aimed at health care plan

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g0LSHNfmnWDnZ_JylqiFxeT5GKEQD9EGLNDO0

I deem this cartoon to be spot on

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWY1MmRjMDNjNTliZmZlNWEyNmQwMTQyOGFkMDdmMTQ=

a tutorial…watch it if you dare


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcBaSP31Be8

Tuesday, March 16, 2010



Massachusetts Treasurer: MassCare on a National Scale Would “Wipe Out the American Economy”  [Stephen Spruiell] NRO


Via Michael Cannon, Democrat-turned-independent gubernatorial candidate Tim Cahill warned today that the nation is perilously close to emulating the folly of MassCare:

State Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill, an independent candidate for governor, today offered a wide-ranging and scathing criticism of the state’s universal health care law, saying it is bankrupting Massachusetts and will do the same nationally, if a similar plan is passed in Congress.

“If President Obama and the Democrats repeat the mistake of the health insurance reform here in Massachusetts on a national level, they will threaten to wipe out the American economy within four years,” Cahill said in a press conference in his office.
Echoing criticism leveled by congressional Republicans in recent weeks, Cahill said, “It is time for the president, the Democratic leadership, to go back to the drawing board and come up with a new plan that does not threaten to bankrupt this country.”

Cahill, who bolted the Democratic Party in July, has been a long-time critic of the state’s health insurance law. He said he was calling today’s press conference to respond to Governor Deval Patrick’s accusation last week that he and other gubernatorial candidates have been “missing in action” in tackling health care concerns.

Cahill said it is the governor who has not done enough to lower costs imposed by the state’s health insurance law, which Cahill said “has nearly bankrupted the state.”

“Who, exactly, is going to bail out the federal government if this plan goes national?” Cahill asked.

Good question.



03/16 06:22 PMShare

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Krauthammer’s Take   [NRO Staff]

On the “Slaughter Solution” to pass Obamacare through the House:

Look, the reason that Pelosi sounded relatively uncertain is because there are two problems. Do you have enough votes in the House to pass the Senate bill as is? And I think she may not. And that’s why they are talking about the “Slaughter Solution,” named after the chair of the Rules Committee. . . .

Her idea is that you pass a rule — [procedures on] how you treat a bill in the House — then, instead of passing the Senate bill itself, you pass amendments [a reconciliation bill]. And what you do is you include in the rule itself ... what’s called a “self-executing rule” which will then deem the Senate bill to have been passed, but not ever having had an up-or-down vote on it [the Senate bill].

This is Alice in Wonderland stuff. This is Twilight Zone. As I read Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution, it says a law “shall have passed” the House and the Senate, not “shall have been deemed to have passed.”

It’s [being done] because here the Democrats are about to change one-sixth of the American economy and demanding ostensibly an up-or-down vote — but are so unwilling to actually have it voted on, that they want to have it deemed accepted in a vote on the rule.

[And that’s] because members of the House look at this as so toxic, so noxious themselves, they don’t want to have their name on it. They don’t want to make history. . . . They don’t even want to have an up-or-down vote on the bill [that enacts Obamacare]. . . .

You have an issue of democratic decency: It is rare enough, unusual enough, and really indecent enough to change a sixth of the American economy with a bill that has not a single support from Republicans.

But to do it by a procedure which doesn’t even approve of the bill itself is simply staggering.

—————-

On President Obama’s declaring yesterday in Ohio that his health-care reform makes Medicare stronger:

Look, I’m a pretty cynical guy, but this is a 10 on [the] Diogenes scale. This is really unbelievable. It’s as if no matter how many times you drive a stake through the heart of this one, it comes again.

Look, here’s how it works. The president says the Obama care will pay for itself. It costs about $1 trillion. You get half a trillion in taxes and half a trillion in Medicare cuts. That’s how it works.

Well, if you take the half a trillion in Medicare cuts, and you use it for this new entitlement, insuring the uninsured, it is spent. Now, you can’t use it again and put it in the trust fund to extend its [Medicare’s] life.

And it’s not only that it doesn’t extend its [Medicare’s] life, but, actually, it makes the Medicare finances worse because that half a trillion is the easiest half a trillion to cut. One day, and soon, you are going to have to make the cuts in Medicare in order that you can extend its life — and the cuts will be gone [used up for Obamacare], and that’s why it actually injures the solvency of Medicare.

And to claim that it [Obamacare] extends [the life of Medicare] is simply remarkable cynicism on the part of the president.

03/16 11:50 AMShare

Monday, March 15, 2010

Obama Comes to Ohio (Again), Nobody Shows Up   [Matt A. Mayer] NRO

 

President Barack Obama, joined by Ohio governor Ted Strickland, came to Ohio today to continue his permanent campaign on health-care legislation. His campaign events during the 2008 presidential race attracted crowds of thousands of Ohioans; this time, President Obama managed a crowd of about 200 people.

With his negative approval numbers in Ohio (44 percent approve, 52 percent disapprove), it isn’t much of surprise that few showed up to hear him once again talk about health care. On health care, Ohioans disapprove of the job President Obama is doing (34 percent approve, 58 percent disapprove). On the health-care proposal, 56 percent of Ohioans mostly disapprove of it, with 43 percent believing that the proposed changes go too far.

The fact of the matter is that Ohioans are almost solely focused on jobs, jobs, and more jobs. On the economy, President Obama is heavily into negative territory (37 percent approve, 57 percent disapprove) as Ohioans in large numbers disprove of his handling of the economy. Given the fact that Ohio had a net increase in jobs from 1990–2010 of just 79,100 private sector jobs in a state of 11.4 million people, these findings shouldn’t be a surprise.

For Ohioans, it really is time that President Obama stopped trying to ram health-care legislation through and started doing what he said he would do in the State of the Union speech — focus like a laser on jobs.

——————-

— Matt A. Mayer is president of the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions.

03/15 03:15 PMShare

YouTube - THE GREAT RENEGER

in his own words

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdKmc9aBELM

Monday, March 15, 2010

Do They Really Believe in Obamacare?  [Michael G. Franc] NRO

 

The Congressional Insiders Poll in National Journal this week asks a cross-section of lawmakers a question that sheds some light on why Democratic party leaders continue to push Obamacare forward in such a politically reckless manner.

The insight: They honestly think its enactment would yield political dividends.

The National Journal asks: “If Congress enacts something close to President Obama’s health care reform plan, how would that affect your party in the midterm elections?”

The pool of respondents consists of 69 members of Congress: House and Senate; Republican and Democrat. They cover each party’s ideological waterfront — from Henry Waxman to Jim Cooper among Democrats and from Michele Bachmann to Olympia Snowe among Republicans. All ten Democratic senators in the pool voted for the Senate health-reform bill, of course, and all but six of the 59 Democratic House members did so. The members’ identities, moreover, are not linked to their responses.

Remarkably, 85 percent of the 44 Democrats who responded said passage of Obamacare would either help their party “a lot” (55 percent) or “a little” (32 percent). Almost all the explanations for why it would help are defensive and purely political in nature. In fact, only one response seems to come from the heart of a true believer who thinks the reforms will actually work. Among the political justifications:

“It’s getting something done, stupid.”

“It would regain a lot of the energy in our own base. Otherwise, we will be in deep trouble.”

“Democrats have to deliver. We are too far into this.”

“Passage means a Rose Garden signing ceremony and some immediate benefits. Failure to pass means incompetence despite our large majorities.”

The true believer, on the other hand, insists passage will help Democrats for more substantive reasons:

“If it passes, people see it’s not the end of the world and learn more about its benefits. The more they know about it, the more supportive they are.”

Every single Republican surveyed, in contrast, insists enactment will help the GOP to one extent or another, with 76 percent saying it would help “a lot” and the remaining 24 percent believing it would help “a little.”

Can we take these Democratic responses seriously, or are they just what we should expect from a cowering rank-and-file not wanting to incur the wrath of the speaker, the majority leader, and Rahm? Remember that, because this is essentially a private ballot, the respondents had every reason to be honest in their replies.

My guess is that most Democrats on the Hill are living in a parallel universe right now. They hear daily from an unrelenting Democratic base its support for whatever Team Obama wants. The cherry-picked poll results that dominate their political briefings are designed to reassure them that it’s okay to follow their leaders. (See the curious way Obama’s own pollster did this on Saturday’s Washington Post op-ed page.) They watch MSNBC, scour the liberal blogs, and read the New York Times editorial page. Most of all, they have faith. Faith that their young and charismatic president won’t let them down.

Their Republican colleagues, meanwhile, can’t believe what they see unfolding before their eyes. To them, passing a bill will prove much more damaging to Democrats in November than if they simply walked away from the health-reform table and focused on more important issues like job creation.

As one Republican respondent told National Journal, the effort to pass Obamacare is nothing less than “an act of political suicide.” Another mused that if Obama care is enacted “the protests last summer will pale in comparison with the turnout next November.” The result, a third Republican predicted: “the Republicans will win the House, possibly by a wide margin.”

Has legislation of such magnitude ever provoked such wildly disparate assessments from the two national parties — not just in terms of its substance but also in what its enactment would mean politically?

All this is more evidence that the end game on Obamacare is nothing less than the legislative equivalent of total war, the sort of total war that visits Washington only once every few generations.

03/15 11:57 AMShare

 

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWZlNGNmOTA2ODhjNDQyOGNjZTAyMmI3OTJmNmJkY2U=

Petition: Kill the Bill

You can sign and be gone in 30 seconds

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/killthebill/

March 16th Rally in DC - The People’s Surge against Obamacare

Can any SAB folk make the trip?

http://teaparty.freedomworks.org/events/march-16th-the-peoples-surge