First to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Reid has declared that the problem with unemployment isn’t the lack of private sector jobs. Nope, it is the lack of government jobs, see. Never mind that the massive $787 Billion Stimulus bill added a whole slew of Federal government jobs (in the thousands). Oh no, as over 400,000 people have been added to the roles this past week, surely it is because the Obama Administration just isn’t hiring enough people! Ahem. Seriously, Reid is talking about firefighters, police officers, and others. Though he is still wrong on the numbers.

Good grief. What is WRONG with this man? Here is Reid’s “logic” on this topic:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Wednesday indicated Congress needs to worry about government jobs more than private-sector jobs, and that this is why Senate Democrats are pushing a bill aimed at shoring up teachers and first-responders.

“It’s very clear that private-sector jobs have been doing just fine; it’s the public-sector jobs where we’ve lost huge numbers, and that’s what this legislation is all about,” Reid said on the Senate floor.

Reid was responding to recent comments from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who accused Democrats of purposefully pursuing higher taxes as part of the teacher/first-responder bill, S. 1723, so that Republicans would oppose it. McConnell said the bill was meant to fail in order to give Democrats an issue to run on in the 2012 election, but Reid said the Republicans are simply trying to defeat President Obama any way they can.

The legislation Reid is defending is part of Obama’s jobs package. Vice President Biden was in Pennsylvania, an important election state, on Tuesday to push for the administration’s plan on increasing the number of teachers. (Click here to read the rest.)

Right. And since the Stimulus worked OH so well (not) the last time around, spending over $228,000 for EACH job SAVED or created, it does not appear they are doing a very good job of managing the funds they want us to pony up. Again.

I love this whole smoke and mirrors action around the “saved” jobs. The whole point of the Stimulus Bill was to STIMULATE the economy and CREATE jobs, not just “save” jobs, a sleight of hand accounting by any measure. What a joke.

Not that we can’t use police officers and firefighters. Of course we do, But this is a far more complex issue than Reid is making it appear. My guess is he’s trying to deflect for failing to pass the Jobs Bill.

Speaking of Biden and his little campaign for Obama’s jobs bill, what this article leaves out in its description was how completely unhinged Vice President Biden appeared on Wednesday, yelling about how women will be raped and people robbed if this flawed Jobs Bill that was never meant to be passed didn’t pass. Don’t take my word for it, here he is in his own words:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Gee, Joe – fearmonger much??

And then there was this “testy” exchange with a Human Events reporter who asked VP Biden if he wanted to back down a bit on his claim that women would be raped and people murdered if this Jobs Bill isn’t passed:

On Wednesday, Biden gave a speech saying budget cuts had drastically impacted police forces in many cities and “the result has been, and it’s not unique, murder rates are up, robberies are up, rapes are up.”

“I didn’t use … no, no, no,” Biden said to Mattera. “Let’s get it straight, guy. Don’t screw around with me. Let’s get it straight.”

Mattera followed up, asking the vice president, “You didn’t use a rape reference?”

“I said rape was up three times in Flint,” Biden replied. “Those are the numbers. Go look at the numbers. Murder is up; rape is up; burglary is up. That’s what I said.” (Click here to read the rest.)

This kind of browbeating, yelling, and threats from the Office of the Vice President to blackmail Congress into passing a flawed bill is disturbing on a number of levels. And one pesky fact Reid and Biden keep forgetting – the Senate is controlled by Democrats, and the bill failed there as well.

Both of these men, Reid and Biden, are appearing a bit desperate in their attempts to force this bill down our throats (shades of Obamacare). But these lengths to which they are going are far afield, and need to be ratcheted back. A lot. What we need is reasoned discussion on both sides of the aisle to come up with a workable program that will address the 9.1% unemployment and over 16% underemployment in this country, not this dear mongering, and blame game being played by Reid, Biden, and Obama. We need a real plan, not a political campaign slogan (at our expense, I might add – you cannot tell me this whole bus tour wasn’t a campaign event).

That’s what we need, and we need it now. What do you think?

In the court case “Win” Column, there is this promising article from the Washington Post, “Judge Questions Justice Department’s Lawsuit Against Arizona Immigration Law.” According to the article, this does not bode well for the DOJ’s argument.

My favorite part of the article:

Judge John T. Noonan Jr. grilled administration lawyers at a hearing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. He took aim at the core of the Justice Department’s argument: that the Arizona statute is “preempted” by federal law and is especially troublesome because it requires mandatory immigration status checks in certain circumstances.

“I’ve read your brief, I’ve read the District Court opinion, I’ve heard your interchange with my two colleagues, and I don’t understand your argument,” Noonan told deputy solicitor general Edwin S. Kneedler. “We are dependent as a court on counsel being responsive. . . . You keep saying the problem is that a state officer is told to do something. That’s not a matter of preemption. . . . I would think the proper thing to do is to concede that this is a point where you don’t have an argument.”

“With respect, I do believe we have an argument,” said Kneedler, who asserts that the Arizona law is unconstitutional and threatens civil liberties by subjecting lawful immigrants to “interrogation and police surveillance.”

The exchange came at a hearing on efforts by the Justice Department to overturn the Arizona law, which empowers police to question people they suspect are in the country illegally and has triggered a fierce national debate. A federal judge in Phoenix issued a July injunction blocking the law’s most contested provisions from taking effect. Arizona appealed, leading to the Monday hearing.

Holy moley, huh? I bet THAT was some fun to watch.

This case is still being considered, and no telling what the final outcome will be, but the attitude exhibited by Judge Noonan was certainly entertaining.

In the court case “Lose” category was this decision, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Is Back On, Indefinitely: Initial Reactions”

In the “I Told You So” category in terms of DADT, Harry Reid has already come out after the election with this claim, “Reid: ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Repeal Depends On GOP Cooperation.” Have I not been saying this all along, that this was the Democrats’ strategy? They knew they were going to lose their Super-majority in the recent election, and despite every opportunity to repeal DADT, Obama and the Democrats pushed it off. Check that – Obama did everything in his power to KEEP “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in place, as the recent appeal highlights. Unbelievable. Not unexpected, just unbelievable that they are starting the blame game the DAY after the election. Spare me.

And in the case of the recent election, the “I Won, But I’m Going To Act Like I Lost” category is Rep. Barney, Frank of MA, he of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac infamy (he claimed they were not in crisis -uh, riiigghhhttt…). As Ed Morrissey of Hot Air highlights, you would never know Barney Frank actually WON his seat against a late challenger(sigh) by the way he acted in his “acceptance” speech. Yes, it is over ten minutes long, but as Mr. Morrissey said:

[snip] Heck, when this got sent to me, I didn’t expect me to sit through it all, either. Once it gets started, it has a certain train-wreck quality to it that kept me hanging on until it finished. It’s a bit like watching Battlefield Earth all the way through to see if it actually gets worse, and in both cases, yes it does. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

See for yourself below:

Yikes. And he’s the WINNER?? Wow. I am a bit embarrassed that I actually voted for this guy. In my defense, then, he was not so much of a political hack (no, really, he wasn’t!! Sheesh. I might add, I can’t believe Deval Patrick won again, too. Holy moley.). Oh, and about Frank’s partner, Jim Ready, having to take it on the chin. Frank seems to forget that there is VIDEO available of his partner heckling Frank’s opponent, Sean Bielat, not the other way around. Wow, talk about revisionist history…

The past two years, along with the recent election, are lessons in winning some, and losing some, I guess. There were a couple of cases in which I wish we had won more, like on DADT and DOMA, but I never expected Obama to live up to his word on that, so I am not surprised. Just more anger at the DNC for shoving this man down our throats against the will of the majority. Hillary would have kept her promise to abolish DADT, not appealed a decision to stay it. Of that I am sure.

And we are still stuck with Harry Reid. Not that I thought Sharron Angle was a great alternative, I just cannot stand Harry Reid. I never did think he was a good choice for Senate Majority leader, and that opinion has only been strengthened in the time he has held that position. His quick blame of the GOP for an utter failure of Obama and the DNC is just another reason.

On the plus side, Nancy Pelosi will have to give up her gavel. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving person. I guess I should not be surprised that Pelosi continues to be in unbelievable denial about her tenure, saying she “has no regrets” (h/t to my aunt). Well, many of the REST of us sure have regrets about how she operated since we’ll be paying for it for years to come (unless Obamacare, the law that no one read, is repealed). That she cannot see her own myopia is no big surprise though, is it? Yeah, no.

So yes, you win some, you lose some. “Cest la vie.” Ain’t that the truth…

Politics is clearly a contact sport. No doubt not all of the punches are above the belt.

I first referenced the Obama White House use of intimidation in the case of Tom Lauria, then lawyer for a group of Chrysler creditors. I wrote in early May 2009, Is Barack Obama Going Tony Soprano? How uncanny that the same reference is utilized today in an article centered on the impact of ObamaCare and the pending sale of three Scranton-area Catholic hospitals. American Spectator writes in regard to ObamaCare:

….the White House is confronted with a rapidly accelerating set of unintended consequences spreading across the country. As listed by theWall Street Journal, those unintended consequences included 2011 premium increases shooting up as high as 9%; “multibillion-dollar corporate writedowns by Verizon, AT&T, Caterpillar and others”; the disruption of insurance markets, a show-down with McDonald’s, the imposition of price controls on premiums, insurers withdrawing from Medicare Advantage.

In what appears to have become a pattern, the response from the Obama Administration has been repeatedly swift and harsh –compared by one critic as an episode straight out of the Sopranos, the famous HBO mobster series.

While the reference to intimidation tactics by the White House in a commentary may grab attention, the simple ‘sense on cents’ embodied in this story has to do with the implication of lessened revenues for hospitals as a result of Obamacare leading to their sale. That reality is absolutely referenced as a primary reason for the sale of three Mercy County, PA hospitals by CEO Kevin Cook.

While the attached story is lengthy, I strongly encourage people to read it because it has major implications for your health care going forward. It also shines a light into the rough and tumble world of national politics. I have no problem with playing hard. I have major problems with those who may look to stifle freedom of speech. This commentary may take ten minutes. Might a version soon be coming to a hospital near you? Read on as American Spectator writes, The President’s Nun: Obamacare Scranton Scandal Explodes:

Can you say “October Surprise”?

A mushrooming political battle over ObamaCare involving the White House, two incumbent Pennsylvania congressmen, three Catholic hospitals and a nun has just exploded in, of all places, Scranton, Pennsylvania. Charges from the Scranton medical community of intimidation by the Obama White House and its allies are filling the air.

All of this just as Vice President Joe Biden arrives in Scranton today to raise money for one of the participants.

There are two issues at the core of the controversy.

1. ObamaCare and the sale of three Scranton-area Catholic hospitals.

2. The re-election prospects of the two House members, Democrats Paul Kanjorski and Chris Carney, both of whom cast key votes to pass ObamaCare.

Here’s the list of players — major and minor — so far.
• The President of the United States.
• The Vice President of the United States.
• Three Scranton-area Catholic hospitals suddenly for sale.
• The CEO of the three Scranton-area Catholic hospitals for sale.
• ObamaCare, otherwise known as “health care reform” or the “Affordable Care Act.”
• A Catholic nun.
• Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak.
• A pen.
• Victoria Reggie Kennedy, widow of the late Senator Ted Kennedy.
• Time magazine.
• The Scranton Times
• The two Scranton-area House members Kanjorski and Carney, both losing in the polls.
• U.S. Senator Bob Casey, Jr., a native and resident of Scranton.
• Congressman Joe Sestak, the Democrats’ nominee for the Pennsylvania U.S. Senate seat.

Where to start? That would be….

March 22, 2010: President Obama signs the Affordable Care Act (aka “ObamaCare”) into law in front of live television cameras and a packed East Room of the White House. According to news accounts, the President uses 21 different pens to sign his name, the highly prized souvenirs of the historic moment given to Vice President Joe Biden, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Victoria Reggie Kennedy, the wife of the late Senator Ted Kennedy along with a very select handful of others.

The President, after being introduced by an exuberant Vice President Biden (who whispers “this is a big f…g deal” into the President’s ear and is picked up by a live microphone) says:

“I heard one of the Republican leaders say this was going to be Armageddon. Well, two months from now, six months from now, you can check it out. We’ll look around and we’ll see.”

Almost immediately — it didn’t take two months much less six — the White House is confronted with a rapidly accelerating set of unintended consequences spreading across the country. As listed by theWall Street Journal, those unintended consequences included 2011 premium increases shooting up as high as 9%; “multibillion-dollar corporate writedowns by Verizon, AT&T, Caterpillar and others”; the disruption of insurance markets, a show-down with McDonald’s, the imposition of price controls on premiums, insurers withdrawing from Medicare Advantage.

In what appears to have become a pattern, the response from the Obama Administration has been repeatedly swift and harsh –compared by one critic as an episode straight out of the Sopranos, the famous HBO mobster series.

The corporate writedowns — done in compliance with federal law — resulted in angry phone calls from then-Obama White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and colleague Valerie Jarrett to corporate CEO’s and the heads of the Washington corporate offices of those involved. Congressman Henry Waxman threatened a congressional investigation into those companies whose obedience to the law put them at odds with the actual results of ObamaCare. Notification by insurers that rates were being forced up by ObamaCare resulted in a threatening letter from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to insurers warning that such candor would not be tolerated — at risk of not being allowed to participate in a future government-run health care exchange for insurers.

Then, suddenly, on October 6 — five days ago — the fuse to what is becoming a huge political explosion was lit.

In the unlikely location of Scranton, Pennsylvania.

IN THE MIDDLE OF THESE two hotly contested re-election races for a pair of Pennsylvania Democratic congressmen, the controversy first erupted over the suddenly announced sale of three Catholic Hospitals spread out between Paul Kanjorski’s and Chris Carney’s two adjoining congressional districts.

The initial announcement was made by Mercy Health Partners CEO Kevin Cook.

Cook is based in Scranton, while Mercy Partners and the three hospitals up for sale are in fact a subsidiary of the larger Catholic Healthcare Partners (CHP) based in Cincinnati, Ohio.

The three Catholic hospitals involved are: Mercy Hospital in Scranton; Mercy Special Care Hospital in Nanticoke, both in Kanjorski’s 11th District. And the Mercy Tyler Hospital in Tunkhannock, located in Carney’s adjacent 10th District.

The Cook announcement was big news in Northeastern Pennsylvania. The Sisters of Mercy had opened Mercy Hospital in Scranton, a major facility for the city, in 1917 — 93 years earlier. Inevitably it drew media attention. Which is where the plot thickens.

WNEP TV (Channel 16) reporter Jon Meyer filed a story about the sale at 4:40 pm. that afternoon. WNEP TV anchor Paula Giangiacomo led the story on the air by saying that “one big” reason for the sale “is the health care reform bill signed into law this year.” Mercy Health Partners CEO Cook was interviewed on camera along with Sister Marie Parker. When Meyer asked Cook if ObamaCare had anything at all to do with the sale, the CEO replied:

“Health care reform is absolutely playing a role. Was it the precipitating factor in this decision? No, but was it a factor in our planning over the next five years? Absolutely.”

Notice the use — twice — of the word “absolutely” by Cook, leaving no doubt with viewers that while ObamaCare wasn’t the “precipitating factor” it was “absolutely playing a role…Absolutely” in the decision by Mercy Health Care Partners to put the three hospitals up for sale.

Then, on Friday October 8, only 48 hours after the story hit the local news on WNEP, the executive changed his story. Sort of. A second statement came out over Mr. Cook’s name as CEO. Headlined on the PR Newswire-US Newswire services, the statement was headed: “Mercy Reiterates Rationale for Sale Exploration.”

Gone was any reference to the subject discussed in the WNEP-TV story. ObamaCare playing a role in the sale of the three hospitals? Where would an idea like that ever come from? Not from this second statement. There is not a word of Cook’s videotaped certainty that ObamaCare is responsible in some measure for this proposed sale. Yet curiously, there is no out-and-out retraction of Cook’s comments to WNEP either. The subject of ObamaCare bearing responsibility for this sale in any fashion is disappeared. Completely missing. The second statement just has Mr. Cook saying that sale discussions were being conducted “long before the passage of the Affordable Care Act. The decision was due to many factors.”

But there appears to have been something else at work here behind the scenes that necessitated this second statement from Cook.

Mysteriously, the very same day, came this statement, also released on the PR Newswire services. Out of the blue, suddenly released by Sr. Carol Keehan, DC, president and chief executive officer of the Catholic Health Association (CHA), the headline was sharp and pointed. The headline?

Alarmist News Reports About Catholic Hospitals Are False; CHA Supports Difficult Decision by Mercy Health Partners.

In a fury that fairly leaps from the page, Sister Carol says immediately that “false motives” have been assigned to the proposed sale of the three Mercy hospitals. Says the good Sister: “Reports that health reform is the primary motive behind the sale are completely false, misleading and politically motivated. Deliberations to sell the facilities began well before the Affordable Care Act became law and did not hinge on enactment of the legislation.”

In other words, Mr. Cook — he the CEO of the hospitals who said flatly that ObamaCare was in fact “absolutely” and yet again “absolutely” playing a role in the sale of the three hospitals — was, in the polite language of a Catholic nun, in essence being called a liar.

By Sunday, there was a third Cook statement, this one posted on the website of Mercy Health Partners. Cook statement # 3 was no longer as benign as statement # 2. The third Cook statement used some of the original language from statement #2, but its lead paragraph was now saying something else entirely. I have marked the change in bold print:

Mercy Health Partners recently announced our intention to explore the sale of our facilities in Northeastern Pennsylvania.The rationale for our initiative has been mischaracterized by certain politicized media outlets and severely distorted by some special interest groups.

In other words, Cook statement #3 has picked up a flavor of the statement from Sister Carol. Now saying without saying it that Cook’s original WNEP answer about the role ObamaCare “absolutely…absolutely” played in the decision to sell the hospitals has been “severely distorted.”

Curious, no? Very.

WHY IN THE WORLD would a Catholic nun be so revved up as to denounce in such strong language what Mr. Cook insisted was a fact — that ObamaCare was “absolutely” and yet again “absolutely” playing a role in the hospital sale? Why the hair-trigger fire-breathing response. From a simple Catholic nun named Sister Carol?

And why in the world would Mr. Cook feel compelled to issue not one but two re-statements of the rationale behind the sale of the three Mercy hospitals?

One doctor in Scranton — who was deeply disturbed by the announcement — is certain he knows the answer. That answer? Mr. Cook was absolutely right the very first time he spoke to WNEP on camera. Hospitals, said this doctor — frequently run a debt. “What’s different? Why now?” he said in terms of the rationale for selling the Mercy hospitals. The reason is exactly as CEO Cook originally said it was. ObamaCare cuts in Medicare reimbursement have changed the rules so drastically for hospitals “you [Mercy Health Partners] are in an untenable situation,” said this physician. Most hospitals have accumulating debt because of capital investments, says the doctor. But they can’t deal with that debt if in fact their ability to earn money is cut off or drastically reduced over time.

Alarmingly, the doctor, with a lifetime of practice in hand, says that “hospitals close in clusters where there is decreased income in terms of relatively low Medicare reimbursement…because they are the most vulnerable.” He adds that what is happening in Scranton, Nanticoke, and Tunkhannock with the Mercy hospitals “is just the beginning. It will happen everywhere because reimbursements will be reduced” under ObamaCare. Particularly, he adds, in areas where you have a high elderly population.

If the doctor is right, and he is not alone in saying this, the proposed sale of the three Mercy hospitals becomes a harbinger of what will happen nationally as a result of ObamaCare slowly tightening its government tentacles over the private health care system. Which means the sale of the three Mercy hospitals has added Scranton to what the Wall Street Journal has already called ObamaCare’s “trail of destruction.”

Ahhhh. But who is Sister Carol Keehan? What’s the big deal here with her? Why would a statement from simple Catholic nun appear to cause so much consternation with Mercy Health Partner CEO Kevin Cook in Scranton, Pennsylvania?

LET’S GO BACK to that presidential signing of the health care reform law. There were 21 very powerful people in that little group who received signing pens from the President. As mentioned that included the Vice President, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy’s widow Victoria Reggie Kennedy. And someone else.

That would be Sister Carol Keehan.

Impressive, no? The Catholic News Agency thought so, and prominently noted the story here. It also noted that Sister Carol was receiving her presidential pen from the President himself because she had been “supporting health care despite bishops’ objections.” The story even pictured the pen itself alongside the presidential seal on the box in which it came, with “Barack Obama” clearly visible scrawled along the side. Meaning, Sister Carol had enough clout to take on the Catholic Bishops on the President’s behalf — and win.

Does the name Bart Stupak ring a bell? The much ballyhooed pro-life Democrat Congressman from Michigan? The Catholic Congressman Bart Stupak who was said to be such a sturdy obstacle to passage of ObamaCare because it would allow abortions? In the aftermath of the ObamaCare passage, Slate came forward to note that a letter signed by “representatives” of Catholic nuns finally swayed Stupak to break his staunch anti-abortion pledge and sign on for ObamaCare with a simple promise of an executive order on abortion, executive orders being overturned by successor presidents with the rapidity of rabbits doing the breeding thing. Wait! Stupak was persuaded by Catholic nuns? Isn’t Sister Carol a …nun? How about that? What a coincidence? Yes indeed, the letter in question was signed — solo — by Sister Carol.

In other words, Sister Carol is not just some kindly nun who reminds you of the nun whacking your knuckles in grade school for this or that offense. No, in the world of Washington Sister Carol is a powerhouse lobbyist — make that a liberal social justice lobbyist — with a clear set of political skills and a very, very high-powered set of very elite friends. She is quite decidedly not just the neighborhood nun. Sister Carol is the Washington voice of the Catholic Health Association, once called the Catholic Hospital Association, which means her clout with Catholic hospitals around America — like the Mercy Hospital in Scranton and its siblings in Nanticoke and Tunkhannock, all run by CEO Cook — is considerable. Not to mention her clout with the parent company located in Cincinnati — and not to mention with Congressman Bart Stupak.

Selected as one of Time magazine’s “2010 Time 100″ most influential people, Sister Carol’s social justice passions were written up glowingly for Time by one of the other Obama 21 pen-receivers at the health care signing: Victoria Reggie Kennedy. AKA, Mrs. Ted Kennedy. Sister Carol, as demonstrated by her status as the receiver of a presidential signing pen, is clearly the President’s favorite nun.

Thus her abilities to whack Mercy CEO Kevin Cook’s knuckles for speaking out of turn on what in fact he “absolutely” and “absolutely” saw a mere two days earlier as the impact of ObamaCare on his hospitals were considerable. And when the Cook statement #2 didn’t pass muster, he apparently was whacked again. After reining in a sitting Congressman Stupak and getting him to, in the yes of many pro-lifers, abandon his anti-abortion stance and pass ObamaCare, what’s a mere hospital executive like Kevin Cook to Sister Carol? It is safe to say that there are doctors in Scranton, furious at what they are seeing as happening to the local health care system, who believe Sister Carol — or someone else connected to the Obama White House if not the someone inside the White House itself — was behind the knuckle rapping of Kevin Cook.

With the White House already on record for having senior staff making angry phone calls to CEO’s over corporate writedowns, having the Secretary of HHS send threatening Soprano-style letters to insurers not to blame ObamaCare for premium increases — the question in Scranton is why wouldn’t the same White House enlist the President’s favorite nun to intimidate Mr. Cook and the company he represents?

Protecting ObamaCare turns out to be but one reason — albeit that alone is a big one with national consequences for this White House.

THE OTHER REVOLVES around the struggling campaigns of Representatives Kanjorski and Carney. And the larger political picture in Pennsylvania. U.S. Senator Robert P. Casey Jr. is a Scranton resident. Indeed, one Scranton source pointed out that the Casey home is within walking distance of Mercy Hospital in Scranton. Casey and his father before him have succeeded in part by creating the image of the old-fashioned FDR-JFK working class Democrat whose values are revered in Scranton. This is the city that is the hometown of Vice President Biden. For Scrantonians and their fellow Pennsylvanians in neighboring communities to suddenly see a Catholic hospital that has been a mainstay for 93 years suddenly slip away has caused considerable upset.

And notably, in a town that is heavily Catholic, the realization that three hospitals that did not perform abortions could be sold to owners who would allow the procedure is infuriating.

Both Kanjorski and Carney have been under fire for their ObamaCare votes from GOP opponents Lou Barletta and Tom Marino respectively. The startling news of the Mercy sale was barely 24 hours old when State Republican Chairman Robert P. Gleason picked up on it, issuing statements tying the ObamaCare votes of the pair to the prospective loss of Mercy.

And at that, Sister Carol, presumably not having the comings and goings of Pennsylvania politics on her mind, suddenly launched herself into the Scranton hospital debacle, presumably finally forcing a tougher stance from Mercy’s CEO Cook in statement #3.

The explosion, all recent with its implications of White House pressure and lost Catholic hospitals, is about to bring in media ads from CatholicVote.org. Says Communications Director Joshua Mercer: “Paul Kanjorski and Chris Carney are Catholic and they both voted for ObamaCare.” Citing the sale of the three Mercy hospitals, Mercer says that the pro-ObamaCare votes of the two “has had a real impact on the community.” Mercer added a sentiment voiced as well by the Scranton doctor: “There are a lot of Kevin Cooks across the country…the CEO’s of small Catholic hospitals are all facing the same realities of more [ObamaCare] mandates and regulations.”

Interestingly, a Scranton medical source notes the lack of coverage of the growing Mercy hospital sales controversy in the local Scranton Times. “It’s a Democratic paper,” the source said, mentioning that he listens to talk radio to get a better picture of the news. “I listen to Rush, to Sean, Fox News and local talk radio. But with a Democratic paper you have to listen to national talk radio to get another perspective.”

Today, Vice President Biden arrives in Scranton to campaign for Congressman Carney.

A Capitol Hill aide to a Republican U.S. Senator says of the Scranton controversy the Obama White House is terrified the Mercy Hospital sales story will “get legs” as a national story — further intensifying the anti-Obama vote pollsters are recording in potentially record numbers. And leading to the defeat of not only Kanjorski and Carney but another Pennsylvania Democratic Congressman who voted for ObamaCare: U.S. Senate nominee Joe Sestak. Sestak is trailing his own opponent, conservative anti-ObamaCare GOP nominee Pat Toomey.

With less than a month to go until election day, one thing is certain.

The story of the President’s nun and charges of possible intimidation of a hospital executive over ObamaCare will ensure the Scranton hospital sale isn’t going away anytime soon.

Growing up in an Irish Catholic household and attending a local Catholic school, I am very familiar with getting knuckles rapped. A few of my brothers were even more familiar with that reality than I. That said, we probably deserved it. In fact, we definitely deserved it. Speaking your mind and freedom of speech in America is a prized virtue. That freedom is critically important for the pursuit of real truth, total transparency, and unbridled integrity. I say we absolutely stand up for it. Who’s absolutely with me?

Larry Doyle

Please subscribe to all my work via e-mail, an RSS feed, on Twitter or Facebook.

I have no affiliation or business interest with any entity referenced in this commentary. As President of Greenwich Investment Management, an SEC regulated privately held registered investment adviser, I am merely a proponent of real transparency within our markets so that investor confidence and investor protection can be achieved.

Senator Lincoln is the one Democrat in this bunch, and I have to say, I am THRILLED she beat Halter. As you no doubt have heard, Halter was supported by MoveOn.org, and the big unions, which poured MILLIONS of dollars into Arkansas (around $10 million), so her win is a big push against the power of the unions, as well as the far left agenda. Here she is celebrating her win:

Lincoln isn’t done – she has a strong challenger in November, but beating the organized union and MoveOn.org backed candidate is huge, make no mistake. It can also be construed as a bit of a referendum on Bill Clinton v. Obama. Clinton endorsed Lincoln, and the Unions/MoveOn are Obama backers. Maybe the Old Dawg still has it…

Nikki Haley, with the backing of both Gov., Sarah Palin and First Lady (of SC) Jenny Sanford, won the vast majority of votes (49%) with her closest competitor, Gresham Barrett, at 22%. Here is Nikki Haley after the election:

Should Haley win come November, she will be the first woman governor in SC, and the second Indian American governor in the US (along with Bobby Jindal).

Meg Whitman talks about her win, and her upcoming race against Jerry Brown (or “Gov. Moonbeam,” as Karl Rove referred to him on “Fox & Friends Weds. morning). In her speech, Whitman gives a shout-out to Carly Fiorina on her win to face Barbara Boxer:

And speaking of Carly Fiorina, here she is in her speech following her win, a win which will pit her against long time senator, Barbara Boxer. She returns the favor to Whitman, with a “Holla” to her, too:

Sharron Angle, the Tea Party backed candidate, will be facing off again st Harry Reid in the Fall. Oh, I cannot begin to tell you how badly I want her to beat Reid. Even when I still considered myself a Democrat (before 5/31/08), I was not a fan of Reid’s, and my opinion of him has only gone down from there. Here’s Angle after her win:

Wow. Again, what a night. I might add, I have said a number of times, that after the Democratic Party eviscerated the best candidate they could have had to be the first woman president, I have no doubt that the first woman president will come from the Republican Party.

Honestly, it has been interesting to me to see how the Republican Party seems to support its women in positions of power far more than the Democrats do. You know, the party that claims to be the party for women. After the misogynistic treatment of Clinton by the DNC itself, compared to the treatment by the RNC with Palin, as well as other powerful women in the RNC, I just knew the Demos had blown their chance in a big, big, big way. Oh, sure, the Democrats have a few women senators and representatives, but none of them are on a par with Clinton. Hell, Obama is not on a par with Clinton, never will be (I think he knows that, too – that’s why he was always putting her down to try and build himself up).

When you look at a field like this, all of these powerful, successful women who are Republicans, you just know that our first woman president is going to come from this kind of group. That is assuming Hillary Clinton is telling the truth when she says she will not run for president again, though since Obama has made such a mess of things in such a short period of time, I am not sure she COULD win in this climate.

November will be must see with Boxer having a strong, accomplished woman like Fiorina facing her, Reid having Angle facing him, Whitman against “Gov. Moonbeam,” and Sheheen having the very popular Haley against him. Things don’t look great for Lincoln against her Republican opponent, though. Maybe Bill will show up for her again…

Stay tuned – November is not that far away!

UPDATE: Gov. Palin also endorsed Susanna Martinez (R) for Governor of New Mexico. Martinez also won big Tuesday night. Here is Gov. Palin talking with Megyn Kelly about the BP oil crisis, and near the end, she discusses the Primary results, especially the role her endorsements played:

In other words, Palin does not take credit for her endorsements making that much of a difference with the wins of the “Mama Grizzlies” – wow. What kind of politician is she, anyway? Ahem.

Anyway, the next few months should prove to be exciting. Can’t wait to see how all of this plays out!

UPDATE #2: And Libby Mitchell won in Maine to represent the Democratic Party(h/t to Yttik). From sea to shining sea, the women are on the rise. Wow!

First are a few polls that will truly make you say, “Uh, yeah – that’s what we’ve been saying. Stop spreading the demonizing hype, and look at reality already.” In other words, the polls are realizing that Tea Partiers are regular old folks, just like you and me, who are fighting to bring down the size of government, and stop the rampant spending in Washington. Yes, the Gallup Poll has discovered, and I am not making up this headline, “Tea Partiers Are Fairly Mainstream In Their Demographics.” “Fairly mainstream”? Yeah, okay – I guess that’s about the best that can be expected from Gallup. Click HERE to see the graphs.

The Hill had this headline, “Survey: Four In 10 Tea Party Members Are Democrats Or Independents.” (My good buddy, Ani, wrote about this in terms of Democratic Women, too. It’s a great read!) The article goes on to say:

The findings provide one of the most detailed portraits to date of the grassroots movement that started last year.

The national breakdown of the Tea Party composition is 57 percent Republican, 28 percent Independent and 13 percent Democratic, according to three national polls by the Winston Group, a Republican-leaning firm that conducted the surveys on behalf of an education advocacy group. Two-thirds of the group call themselves conservative, 26 are moderate and 8 percent say they are liberal.

I wonder how this is going to change, or if it WILL change, the constant representation by the MSM that Tea Partiers are all a bunch of right wing fanatics? Clearly, they are not.

And here’s one more headline that might catch their attention: “Tea Party 48% Obama 44%.” Oh, dear. I wonder how they are going to try and spin THIS one:

On major issues, 48% of voters say that the average Tea Party member is closer to their views than President Barack Obama. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 44% hold the opposite view and believe the president’s views are closer to their own.

Not surprisingly, Republicans overwhelmingly feel closer to the Tea Party and most Democrats say that their views are more like Obama’s. Among voters not affiliated with either major political party, 50% say they’re closer to the Tea Party while 38% side with the President.

The partisan divide is similar to that found in the President’s Job Approval Ratings and on the Generic Congressional Ballot.

Yeah, and just maybe his job approval numbers are down because he is breaking our nation, with the help of Reid and Pelosi.

And in the “Anything Is Possible” especially after Obama got one, there is this piece of satire from Andy Borowitz?|:

iPad™ Wins Nobel Peace Prize; First Electronic Device to Win, Experts Say

OSLO, NORWAY (The Borowitz Report) – In a remarkable break with tradition, the committee that awards the Nobel Peace Prize chose today to bestow that coveted honor on the Apple iPad™.

It was believed to be the first time an electronic device has won the Peace Prize, which is usually awarded to a human being, experts say.

“We didn’t want to fall prey to all of the hype surrounding the iPad™,” said Nobel committee chairperson Gustav Traavik, who waited at the Apple store in Oslo for over two hours to buy the device. “But it is sweet.”

In the twenty-four hours since it was released, the iPad™ has been credited with an impressive list of accomplishments, including saving the newspaper industry, the publishing business, and Tiger Woods’ marriage.

I mean, really – the Nobel Peace Prize Committee already broke with tradition when they decided to hand out the award for things one MIGHT accomplish at some point in the future (or not), so why not for the iPad? Just as plausible, in my book.

It will be interesting to see if the MSM and the Democrats stop trashing the Tea Party members when they realize they are “fairly” much the same as everyone else. If nothing else, perhaps the Democratic Party will stop being so damn high and mighty, not to mention arrogant and patronizing, along with too many of their sycophants in the media (talking to you, Keith, Chris, et al) to anyone and everyone who doesn’t bow down to The One. Hey, I can hope, can’t I?

So, what is your take on these surveys and polls? I’d love to hear it!

**Update – since I wrote this, there has been the horrible mine explosion in WVA. My thoughts and prayers go out to that community, to the families who lost loved ones, and those who are still wondering about their own family members. Such a tragedy…

Apparently, I am not the only one, though I’m not the one who counts. It’s the people who are actually in Reid’s state who matter at this juncture. And they are none too happy with him, either. Even a visit from The One didn’t help him, as this article makes clear, POLL: Obama’s Visit Just Bounced Off Reid; Poll shows senator gained little ground in re-election battle. Oh, dear. That doesn’t bode well, does it? Short answer, no. But here’s the particulars of just how much Obama did not help the senator in his re-election bid:

During his whirlwind visit to Las Vegas two weeks ago, President Barack Obama mentioned U.S. Sen. Harry Reid by name four dozen times, gave him a big hug and talked him up as if he was a long-lost brother.

In remarks that could not have been more laudatory, Obama repeatedly characterized the veteran Democratic leader as a man “made of very strong stuff” who was making the right decisions for the state back in the nation’s capital.

But as Reid faces an uphill path to win re-election to a fifth Senate term, Obama’s enthusiastic endorsement does not appear to have improved the Senate majority leader’s standing among constituents, according to a new poll conducted for the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

Reid got no bounce from Obama’s visit on Feb. 19, when the president spoke highly of him at Green Valley High School and to business leaders at CityCenter, polling indicates.

A larger percentage of voters surveyed (17 percent) said they would be less likely to vote for Reid following the president’s visit than said they would be more likely to vote for him (7 percent). Seventy-five percent said Obama’s visit would have no effect on how they vote.

“Reid was not helped, and Obama was not any more popular than he was before he came to the state,” said Brad Coker, managing director at Mason-Dixon Polling & Research.

Obama’s day in Vegas “did not have much of an effect” on Reid’s re-election chances, notably among independent voters, Coker said.

Um, I’m no mathematician, but I do know basic arithmetic: 17 – 7 = 10, so I’m not real sure about Coker’s conclusion that Obama’s visit “did not have much of an effect” on Reid’s behalf. Seems like Obama’s visit had QUITE the effect, just not the kind Reid probably wanted. Coker continued:

“The independents hold the key to Reid, and for Reid there is no sign he is cracking them right now,” he said.

Mason-Dixon researchers spoke over the phone with 625 likely Nevada voters Monday through Wednesday. The poll’s margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

A political boost for Reid “wasn’t the intent of the visit,” Reid spokesman Jon Summers said.

“Senator Reid asked the president to come to Nevada to talk about jobs and the economy and in doing so they announced $100 million to help Nevadans who are underwater in their homes,” Summers said.

Oh, you have GOT to be kidding me. That’s how they are going to try and spin this? They really do think we are a bunch of A-Number 1 Morons, don’t they? Naturally, this had absolutely zip to do with Reid’s continued struggles for re-election, not the best impression when the Senate Majority Leader is having such a hard time in his own state. Surely he can count on a little, tiny bounce by a visit from the president – not:

Regarding Obama’s trip to Las Vegas, the president’s lack of a coattail for Reid to ride says as much about Nevadans’ ambivalence toward the president as it does about the senator, Coker said.

Reid’s renewed focus on passing jobs bills in the Senate continues to be overshadowed in voters’ minds by Obama’s association with the unpopular health care debate, including Thursday’s daylong health summit , Coker said.

“It would be to Obama and Reid’s advantage to get off health care and get onto issues that people want them to work on,” Coker said.

But Obama’s visit served several purposes for Reid that wouldn’t turn up in the numbers, at least not yet, said Mark Peplowski, a political science professor at the College of Southern Nevada.

One purpose is to excite the Democratic base, particularly younger voters and occasional voters who went with Obama in 2008 and need to be re-energized.

“Pollsters now are talking with inveterate voters, but Obama and Reid are looking long term at nine months from now because Harry doesn’t have a primary race,” Peplowski said.

David Damore, a UNLV professor, said Reid’s ability to put Obama together with business leaders, as he did at a fund­raiser and again at CityCenter, shows power brokers, including Republican ones, that he can continue to deliver.

That might cement Reid’s support later among people who otherwise might think about contributing to his Republican challenger, Damore said. (Contact Stephens Media Bureau Chief Steve Tetreault at stetreault@reviewjournal.com or 202-783-1760.)

Yeah, let’s just see how well that goes over with the regular people of Nevada. They seem to see both Obama and Reid pretty clearly, don’t they? Make sure to check out the comments of the people who live in that state following the article. Hooey, there are some folks who are hot under the collar.

Or maybe they just don’t cotton to Obama telling people NOT to come to Las Vegas – TWICE, and waste their money there.

Ahem. Well, we keep trying to tell them that JOBS are what we need, something that will pay the mortgage, pay our utility bills, enable us to buy gas to get to work, and cash to put food on the table. We do not need some half-baked plan full of pork that will constitute 1/6th of the economy and will cost us money we don’t have – personally, and as a country, just to massage the ego of “That One.”

Yep, those coattails of Obama’s ain’t what they used to be – oh, wait, they never were (just ask Cornine, Deeds, or Coakley). Maybe it’s time for our “representatives” in Washington to figure out they are there to do OUR work, not whatever the man in the White House demands. If not, more of them, hopefully like Reid, will be looking for jobs themselves.

Hey, here’s a thought – Obama, why don’t you go “help” Pelosi, too? Since she seems to have forgotten her job description, to represent the people and not you, Obama, she could do with retirement. Rather, WE could do with her retirement.

Who else should Obama go “help”?

It’s an excellent question, Eastan. Here is a look at the list of invitees to Obama’s “Bipartisan” Healthcare Summit:

Senator Harry Reid, D-NV, Majority Leader
Senator Mitch McConnell, R-KY, Republican Leader
Senator Dick Durbin, D-IL, Majority Whip
Senator Jon Kyl, R-AZ, Republican Whip
Senator Max Baucus, D-MT, Chairman of the Finance Committee
Senator Chuck Grassley, R-IA, Ranking Member of the Finance Committee
Senator Tom Harkin, D-IA, Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
Senator Mike Enzi, R-WY, Ranking Member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
Senator Chris Dodd, D-CT, Member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
Senator Chuck Schumer, D-NY
Senator Patty Murray, D-WA
Senator Kent Conrad, D-ND
Senator Jay Rockefeller, D-WV
Senator Ron Wyden, D-OR
Senator Lamar Alexander, R-TN
Senator John Barrasso, R-WY
Senator Tom Coburn, R-OK
Senator John McCain, R-AZ
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA
Representative Steny Hoyer, D-MD, Majority Leader
Representative John Boehner, R-OH, Republican Leader
Representative James Clyburn, D-SC, Majority Whip
Representative Eric Cantor, R-VA, Republican Whip
Representative Charles Rangel, D-NY, Chairman of the Ways and Committee
Representative Dave Camp, R-MI, Ranking Member of the Ways and Means Committee
Representative Henry Waxman, D-CA, Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee
Representative Joe Barton, R-TX, Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee
Representative George Miller, D-CA, Chairman of the Education and Labor Committee
Representative John Kline, R-MN, Ranking Member of the Education and Labor Committee
Representative John Dingell, D-MI, Chair Emeritus of the Energy and Commerce Committee
Representative Xavier Becerra, D-CA
Representative Louise Slaughter, D-NY
Representative Robert Andrews, D-NJ
Representative Jim Cooper, D-TN
Representative Paul Ryan, R-WI
Representative Marsha Blackburn, R-TN
Representative Charles Boustany, R-LA
Representative Peter Roskam, R-IL
** Note: Senator McConnell and Leader Boehner will designate one additional Republican member to attend.**

How many elected women do you count in there? I counted four, a rather paltry number, a slim representation for over HALF the population of the United States (and the world, for that matter).

Why does this matter? Because women have “Unique Health Needs,” that’s why:

* 80% of the population with osteoporosis are women.
* 75% of people with lupus are women.
* Twice as many women as men have arthritis.
* Hypothyroidism is ten times more prevalent in women than in men.
* Fibromyalgia (FM) is nine times more prevalent in women than in men.
* Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is three times more common in women than in men.
* Migraine headaches affect women three times more than men.
* Women experience more severe and more pain overall than men.
* Interstitial cystitis is almost exclusively found in women.
* Multiple sclerosis occurs more in women than in men.
* Endocrine imbalance affects women more than men.

Women with auto-immune conditions often have food and/or environmental sensitivities, heavy metal toxicity, dysbiosis and/or leaky gut syndrome. Depending on the genetics, lifestyle, and environmental affects, each person’s unique biochemistry will determine which tests are of highest priority.

For example, osteoporosis is of major concern for aging women. Bone mineral density testing is necessary to determine bone health. Solomon and colleagues reported that bone mineral density testing (BMD) is under-utilized by a majority of health care professionals. BMD is an important test for assessment of bone density. Urinary bone resorption assessment is a useful test to monitor whether treatment is preventing further bone loss.

Thyroid dysfunction was reported to be three times as high in women with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) than in women with non-inflammatory rheumatic diseases such as osteoarthritis and fibromyalgia. Some RA patients have food and environmental sensitivities, and others have dysbiosis. RA has especially been linked with a genetic predisposition and Proteus bacteria as a trigger for the illness.

Bairey–Merz reports that about 50% of women but 17% of men who have diagnostic cardiac catheterization have normal coronary arteries. So, 50% of the time chest pain in women is due to some other cause(s). Assessment of mineral status, and of other cardio risk factors such as homocysteine, fibrinogen, and C–reactive protein can be used to detect other contributors to chest pain. These tests and others are included in a comprehensive cardiovascular assessment. Magnesium deficiency often mimics angina and arrhythmia. Serum minerals testing would be of benefit.

Higher levels of estradiol also are associated with increased risk of chest pain, so a hormone panel would be indicated as well.

Although CFS and FM are distinct, they have many common characteristics in symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment. Several studies have reported a high incidence of food sensitivities, leaky gut syndrome, and thyroid autoimmunity in fibromyalgia and CFS.

That’s why it matters that there were so few women present in these discussions. As if they really mattered anyway since Big Pharma already has its deal in place, along with some other sweetheart deals for a few states, etc. But still – Obama could have made more of an effort. You know, with him being such a big feminist and all, right, “Ms. Magazine”?? Yeah, right.

This bill is fraught with so many problems, major problems. We know that. We’ve discussed that for months. But having so few women at the table is a pretty big problem, too. With so many health issues particular to women, and affecting women more than men, it should have been an IMPERATIVE that more women were involved in this process, not fewer. That’s reason enough to go back to the drawing board, don’t you think? I do.

And something else I think – had there been a President Hillary Clinton, as there should have been, the voices of women would have been well represented, with a seat at the table. With Obama? Not so much…

Fast forward to the end of year one of President Obama’s rule. He outsourced control to the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Franks, et al – the worst of what the current Democratic Party has to offer. Just like the Bush Administration before them, they co-opted the “never let a crisis go to waste” mantra, using the fears of the American people to ram through an unsuccessful pork-laden stimulus package and an incomprehensible health care giveaway to insurance and big phrma. But no jobs. Where are the jobs? Tone deaf. Arrogant. 2008 all over again. We are still being told we don’t matter. But this time, it is not just Hillary supporters – it is all of the American people. I live in a liberal area and I am seeing the anger growing even here.

Citizens at both ends of the spectrum are steaming and do not appreciate having their good will and trust abused. This was made clear in the past two Governor’s races. The special MA Senate race, where it looks as though Scott Brown may actually pull out a win in true blue Massachusetts, is sending shock waves in political circles throughout the country. As it should. That is the price you pay for treating the American people like we are a bunch of idiots. Congress, living in its rarified air, has the audacity to think they know what is best for us when they do not share our struggles.

But how can we blame Obama and Congress for thinking the American people can be led around like sheep when that is exactly what happened last year. The majority of voters bought into a commercial brand, without any evidence that the product could deliver as advertised.

How many of us have been calling our representatives complaining of reckless spending? My Congressman’s assistant had the facts wrong on the health care bill even as she bragged to me about its merits. My Senators’ staffers are arrogant and impatient when I call. And they are elitist as well. I have done my homework. I am their constituent and voicing my righteous concerns. And I am still being told to sit down and shut up.

The Democrats are as drunk with power as the Republicans were when they had a huge majority in 2002. The neo-cons predicted a supermajority for 20 years. They got their comeuppance. The same is coming for Democrats. I am heartbroken after biting my lip for eight years with the rule of the neo-cons that this is the “change” we are stuck with. Bailing out Wall Street and not Main street, back door deals and no transparency. Continuation of the policies of the previous administration.

I, too, was for Martha Coakley and wrote on her behalf when she was contesting the primary. I still believe she was the best of the Dem. primary contestants (particularly since she was running against a Pelosi pick) but I am disturbed by what I have learned and seen unfold this last week. Considering Coakley fought back the Stupak amendment, supports Gay rights and supported Hillary to the end, I am miserable to see her stand in lock step now with Obamacare and some of her other statements and actions this week have knocked me for a loop.

For her to fall into Party groupthink behavior is not what we need in the Senate. We have far too much of that already. Coakley having a fundraiser thrown by Big Insurance/Big Phrma was not the message the Coakley campaign wanted to send. Part of the reason I liked Coakley was that she did not stand with Obamacare. She has folded. In so doing, she has likewise turned a deaf ear to the mood of the country and to her own principles. That action has also tied her to Obama, scapegoating her for the actions of this reckless Administration.

The herd mentality is common to both parties and is killing us all. We need independent thinkers regardless of party. In our current system where there is no limit on campaign spending or fundraising, how is it possible for our public servants not to be slaves of the almighty dollar. When they are threatened with primary challenges if they do not kiss the feet of their respective party’s establishment and follow their orders, how can they vote their consciences? Clearly, public service of this kind is not meant to be a lifetime career. A little less focus on self-aggrandizement or re-election and more focus on doing the people’s business is in order.

Scott Brown may have skeletons in the closet of his record as well. Coakley might be the sacrificial lamb here since the Pelosi wing clearly has no use for her. But the fact is, what we have of late discovered about some of Coakley’s record does not look good. As much as I would like to trumpet a qualified woman for this office, I have seen that my wish to break the boys club and reward someone with the guts to stick with Hillary to the end allowed me to trust what I saw on the surface without digging in deeply for myself. Yet I am not assuming that Scott Brown by himself will be able to stop Obamacare as it currently stands. Like the Bush Administration before them, this bunch will push through whatever they see fit.

Such arrogance brings into sharp focus another mistake of the Coakley campaign post-primary. She, like many of us, assumed that in blue Massachusetts, winning the primary was as good as winning the general — what Republican would gain a foothold here? What Republican indeed. Nothing can or should be be taken for granted. Media boobs like MSNBC’s David Shuster wondering whether the people of Massachusetts “have lost their minds” and the likes of Shuster, Anderson Cooper and even Senator Schumer referring to the opposition as “teabaggers” does nothing to help Coakley’s cause.

Scott Brown is offering a populist message and in his Sunday campaign rally skillfully used Obama’s 2008 rhetoric against him. Truly I have no idea what he’s going to do if he gets into office. He could likewise be capitalizing on the mood of the country and trumpeting a populist message he has no intention of enforcing. I have seen far too much kabuki theatre from both sides to be trusting again. I can only hope that he is sincere. Nonetheless, the bigger picture has become breaking the supermajority. And sending a message to the arrogant few who are telling the many that we don’t matter.

So, with all the hot water many Democrats are in now, aided by the new book, Game Change, no doubt the fundraising calls will get more and more insistent. They have to overcome not just what was in the book, but stories like this from the Washington Post, “Sen. Reid and son, Cory, Each Considered A Burden For The Other’s Campaign In Nevada.” Or how about this one, “Obama’s Approval Rating Dips To A New Low“? Then there’s this one, “Scott Brown Swearing-in Would Be Stalled To Pass Healthcare Reform“. And that is merely the beginning of the problems for the Democratic National Party.

By the way, one thing about this book, and that is the attacks (what else is new) on the Clintons, both of them. Tuesday morning, I just happened to turn on the news and there was Laura Ingraham, of all people, on. She was asked about what this book said regarding the Clintons, and – I cannot believe I am about to reference her – she said something along the lines of (this is not a precise quote, and I haven’t been able to get a link yet, but will supply it if it comes available), “Bill Clinton said he didn’t think Obama had the experience to be president, and Hillary did, especially after Arkansas, the White House, etc. Why is that a surprise?” Uh, yeah. No kidding. She added that she bet Hillary’s approval numbers were higher than Obama’s, which we do know is accurate. And of course, the Big Dawg was right on target, too, wasn’t he?? She continued to say that nothing in the book about the Clintons was that big of a surprise, which makes me wonder why there are articles like this one around, “The End OF The Clinton Machine.” Are these writers just HOPING so, and if that is the case, why? As Hillary always said, “what didn’t they like, the peace, or the prosperity?” Uh yeah.

Therein lies the end of the digression.

So, those headlines above, especially the last one (wanting to change the rules again)? That pretty much says it all about Obama taking his Chicago Politics to a national level. Oh, yippee.

Consequently, the combination of this being an election year, the rapid decline of approval for Obama AND the Congress, suggests to me we will be getting lots of fundraising calls, especially those of us who have given money in the past.

Just yesterday, I received a phone call from Emily’s List that went something like this:

Okay, maybe not QUITE that extreme, but I have had some very insistent thugs on the other end of DNC and DNC-affiliated organizations arguing with me about why I should give them any more money. This woman argued with me, too. Um, MY money, and I can give it to whomever I wish. If you start DEMANDING it, guess how much you’re gonna get from me? Nada, zip, zilch, nothing, big donut hole, zero dollars.

After two years of essentially the same response from me, “I don’t give money to liars, cheats, thieves, misogynists, and homophobe,” I feel I need new material. So I am turning to you for some pithy responses to the demands for money from the DNC.

Let’s hear it! What pithy retorts can I give these people?

But what is not being focused on in this book, at least so far, is how clearly it asserts the fix was in AGAINST Hillary Clinton. In each piece thus far, there has been something about the DNC not wanting Hillary Clinton to be the nominee, or the senators with clout secretly backing Obama. In the NY Magazine article, “Saint Elizabeth and the Ego Monster,” there are passages like this:

Edwards never expected to be the third wheel in 2008. The race was going to be Hillary versus him. That was how he saw it from the start. She would be the front-runner, of course. But as sure as night follows day, there would be an alternative, an anti-Hillary, and he would be it.

The Democratic Establishment agreed that there would be—and certainly should be—a viable challenger to Clinton. The party’s pooh-bahs on Capitol Hill were privately terrified about the prospect of Hillary rolling to the nomination. They feared that she was too polarizing to win, that she would drag down House and Senate candidates in red and purple states; and they worried, too, about Bill’s putative affairs (emphasis mine). But while the Clintons themselves regarded Edwards as Hillary’s most formidable rival, there existed a deep wariness about the North Carolinian among his fellow Democrats. In the Senate, in particular, Edwards was regarded almost universally by his former colleagues as a callow, shallow phony. Quietly, the Establishment began a quest to find a different alternative, eventually settling on the unlikely horse that was Obama—with Harry Reid personally, and secretly, urging the Illinois senator to run against Clinton.

So much for the people choosing our nominee, right? I just love that the “pooh-bahs” decided that Hilary was too polarizing. THEY created this hype, along with the Republicans during Bill’s tenure, and with the MSM. But the people who listened to her, who read her policies, who saw how she worked, knew she was exactly who we wanted to run for president

This isn’t the only example out of this book. There is also the claim by the book’s authors that Chuck Schumer secretly supported Obama, though he publicly claimed to support Hillary Clinton. Needless to say, Schumer’s people claim this isn’t true, but again, even taking what the authors wrote with a grain of sand, this doesn’t sound good. The book goes on to claim Schumer encouraged a “get tough” policy against Clinton, and enlisted another senator to support Obama, presumably in his stead:

The book reports that in the summer of 2007, Schumer and others wanted Team Obama to get tougher on Clinton.

At one point, the authors contend, Schumer felt “Obama needed to take a two-by-four to Hillary,” the book says.

Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill was tapped as the messenger from the worried senators to the Obama campaign.

She denies feeling any such pressure.

“It wasn’t like he [Schumer] came to me and said, ‘Be for Barack Obama – I gotta be for Hillary,’” McCaskill told the Daily News Saturday. “He never, ever said a word to me that would give the kind of impression [this book seems] to be giving. He was never giving advice to the campaign on how to undermine her.”

What a bunch of back-stabbing conniving Brutus’ these senators are. And the DNC, too, if you ask me.

The glaring fallacy with the logic of the DNC and its minions are the number are Republicans who crossed over for Hillary Clinton. Former dyed-in-the-wool Republicans becoming caucus captains for Hillary in Texas, for example (an example relayed to me by the person who crossed over). All of the post voting showed Hillary Clinton got the majority of Democratic votes AND a large number of Republican votes. Yet the DNC in its infinite “wisdom” decided Hillary Clinton could NOT be the nominee, and worked their asses off to break every rule necessary to make that so.

No doubt, there will be more to this book after it is released this week, but there are some glaring omissions mentioned thus far. Ben Smith noted that Obama was pretty much the same throughout the campaign, thus most of these revelations are about the Clintons, the Edwards, et al. But as one commenter noted:

Where are the stories of how the campaign handled Jerimah (sic) Wright?

Where are the stories about how they had to put a muzzle on Michelle Obama?

Where are the stories about ‘sweetie’ and calling his grandmother a ‘typical white person’?

And who did Obama think he picked when he picked Joe Biden? He must be stupid if he is surprised by how he has acted!

The secret to Obama winning was the media and frankly Mark Halprin doesn’t want to blow that gig.

No kidding. Don’t forget the “Obama and Biden Can’t Stand Each Other” part of this book referenced above, which is sure not getting much play by the MSM:

The relationship between Barack Obama and Joe Biden grew so strained during the 2008 campaign, according to a new book, that the two rarely spoke and aides not only kept Biden off internal conference calls but refused to even tell him they existed.

Instead, a separate campaign call was regularly scheduled between the then-Delaware senator and two of Obama’s top campaign aides – “so that they could keep a tight rein on him,” write journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann in “Game Change,” a long-awaited account of the 2008 campaign.

Uh, yeah. So, the bottom line as far as I can tell from this book so far is this: the Democratic Party committed massive fraud in 2008, costing voters millions of dollars in campaign donations to candidates they had already determined were not going to get the nomination. That is fraud, pure and simple. Not only did I give donations (in the beginning to John Edwards), but I gave a LOT to Hillary Clinton.

If the DNC knew they were never going to let her get the nomination no matter how she performed, no matter how many people voted for her, no matter WHAT, that, to me, is fraud. And they damn well better be held accountable for that, don’t you think?

Reid Apologizes For ‘Negro dialect’ Comment; Reid apologized Saturday for remarks he made about then-candidate Barack Obama.

Washington (CNN) – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid apologized Saturday following reports he had privately described then-candidate Barack Obama during the presidential campaign as a black candidate who could be successful thanks in part to his “light-skinned” appearance and speaking patterns “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

Journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann reported the remarks in their new book “Game Change,” which was purchased by CNN Saturday at a Washington-area bookstore. The book is slated for official release next Tuesday.

“He (Reid) was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama – a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,’ as he said privately. Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama’s race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination,” they write.

“I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words,” Reid said in a statement to CNN.

Holy Crappydoo. Are you kidding me?? One thing with which I can agree, this was certainly a “poor choice of words.” That is putting it mildly. You know there are more words to come to explain this away:

(Update 4:00 pm: Reid spokesman Jim Manley tells CNN that the senator also called President Obama Saturday afternoon to apologize for his remark. In a statement released by the White House, the president accepted Reid’s apology: “Harry Reid called me today and apologized for an unfortunate comment reported today. I accepted Harry’s apology without question because I’ve known him for years, I’ve seen the passionate leadership he’s shown on issues of social justice and I know what’s in his heart. As far as I am concerned, the book is closed.”)

In his Saturday statement, Reid said he apologized “for offending any and all Americans, especially African Americans for my improper comments.

“I was a proud and enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama during the campaign and have worked as hard as I can to advance President Obama’s legislative agenda.”

Reid also pointed to his efforts to integrate the Las Vegas strip and the gaming industry, among other legislation favored by African-American voters: “I have worked hard to advance issues important to the African American community.”

The Nevada Democrat – who waited to formally endorsed Obama until after the conclusion of the tough presidential primary battle in 2008 – is facing an uphill re-election fight this year in his home state. (CNN Political Producer Rebecca Sinderbrand contributed to this report.)

By all means, check out the Comments at this piece, too. The people there are playing a game of Twister to try and claim why these comments were not the LEAST bit racist, and only Republicans would see it that way. Riigggghhhttt. And speaking of:

Update: Republicans called on Democratic lawmakers and candidates Saturday to condemn Reid’s original remarks. “For those who hope to one day live in a color-blind nation it appears Harry Reid is more than a few steps behind them,” National Republican Senatorial Committee communication director Brian Walsh said in a statement.

“Unfortunately, this is just the latest in a long history of embarrassing and controversial remarks by the senior Senator from Nevada. He always shares exactly what’s on his mind with little regard to perception or consequences, and it’s one of the reasons he is the most vulnerable incumbent Senator in either party facing re-election.

“Nevada deserves better from its leaders and this November, voters in the Silver State will have an opportunity to elect a new Senator who will put their views and values first and foremost. In the meantime, we hope Reid’s fellow Democrats in the Senate and on the campaign trail will stand up and rightly condemn these racially insensitive remarks by their elected leader.”

As indicated above, Harry Reid is already facing a hard row to hoe to win back his position. His poll numbers were already tanking in Nevada BEFORE this little Newsflash came out. Sure will be interesting to see how this plays out for him in the next few months…

I might add, how lovely of Obama to be so magnanimous and excuse these comments from Reid, asserting that what is in Reid’s heart was not reflected in Reid’s words. Uh, yeah. Sure. It’s a shame that assertion was not extended to those of us who never not even spoke words like this, but never had them in our hearts, either, yet when did not support Obama, were being painted with that broad brushstroke of racism.

Or that this dismissal of such a charge was not extended to the Clintons, who also never said anything remotely like Reid’s comments, but who were labeled as racists by Obama for simply stating facts. That’s some crystal ball Obama has to be able to tell the difference between what is in one’s heart and what actually comes out of one’s mouth.

As for Reid, he does not need a crystal ball to see into his future. His constituents are going to let him know soon enough what his future holds. These kinds of statements from him might just make the message that much clearer.

So, what do you think? Racist comments, or much ado about nothing?

UPDATE: Now it is coming out that Bill Clinton allegedly said that “a few years ago, he would be getting us coffee” speaking about Obama to Ted Kennedy when trying to get Kennedy’s support. Now, IF Bill Clinton said this, I take that to mean Obama would have been a staffer given his lack of experience, not anything more nefarious than that. In light of Reid’s comments, however, I have no doubt that is how people are construing it.

One person made a negative comment about Bill Clinton at the above referenced article, to which someone else made this very good reply:

Bulls***! Clinton has a long history of being pro civil rights. This is another smear the Clintons hit job by the Obama or Kennedy sychophants. Everyone knows Kennedy had a meltdown after Hillary credited Johnson rather than JFK (and rightly so) in the passing of the Civil Rights Act when discussing MLK jr. The following day Ted and Caroline endorsed Obama. People need to do their history on both the Clintons and the Kennedys. The Clintons have always been on the side of AA’s in the struggle for equal rights. Where were the Kennedys? Before Bobby convinced JFK to support civil rights in his campaign platform JFK did’nt give a rat’s *** about black people. How conveniently people forget or whitewash JFK voting AGAINST civil rights in 1957 when he was the Senator for Massachussetts …a mere 3 years before running for POTUS! Or even Bobby ordering the FBI to wiretap MLK. Or Papa Joe Kennedy’s pro Nazi sympathies?! The Kennedys are the biggest hypocrites ever especially that boozer Ted who could’nt tolerate the idea that there might be two Clintons making it to the White House and only one Kennedy. Oh no, That family has long believed that the Democratic Party was actually their personal fiefdom and damn if the Clintons were going to be the new royalty! This is a whopper of a LIE and even the most rabid Clinton hater can smell the stench of this caca! Posted By: True Democrat

Someone else commented that Kennedy couldn’t stand the thought of a woman president, which would not surprise me at ALL. That seems far more likely to me.

In any event, I wanted to include this since I had made mention of the charges of racism against the Clintons above.

Well, there is one organization that has a request for Congress, and that would be C-Span. Surely you remember the numerous times Obama promised to debate healthcare in the open, so constituents could see what their elected officials were doing, and that it would be aired on C-Span, rather than the bill being crafted in secret, behind closed doors? Well, naturally, we should have known (and many of us suspected), that scenario, the secret meetings one, was EXACTLY what the Democrats have done. C-Span is over it, and recently sent this letter to the Powers-That-Be:

December 30, 2009

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi The Honorable Harry Reid
Speaker Majority Leader
United States House or Representatives United States Senate

The Honorable John Boehner The Honorable Mitch McConnell
Minority Leader Minority Leader
United States House of Representatives United States Senate

Dear Speaker Pelosi:
Representative Boehner:
Senator Reid:
Senator McConnell:

As your respective chambers work to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate health care bills, C-SPAN requests that you open all important negotiations, including any conference committee meetings, to electronic media coverage.

The C-SPAN networks will commit the necessary resources to covering all of these sessions LIVE and in their entirety. We will also, as we willingly do each day, provide C-SPAN’s multi-camera coverage to any interested member of the Capitol Hill broadcast pool.

Since the initial introduction of the America’s Affordable Health Care Act of 2009 in the House and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in the Senate
C-SPAN has televised literally hundreds of hours of committee hearings, mark ups and floor debate on these bills for the public to see. And importantly, we have archived all of this video for future generations to study in the C-SPAN Video Archives.

President Obama, Senate and House leaders, many of your rank-and-file members, and the nation’s editorial pages have all talked about the value of transparent discussions on reforming the nation’s health care system. Now that the process moves to the critical stage of reconciliation between the Chambers, we respectfully request that you allow the public full access, through television, to legislation that will affect the lives of every single American.

We hope you will give serious consideration to this request. We are most willing to employ the latest digital technology to make the cameras, lights and microphones as unobtrusive as possible.

Please contact me if I can answer any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian Lamb

I guess Mr. Lamb couldn’t put “Honorable” in quotation marks, though I think I would have been sorely tempted to do so for the members he addressed. But that’s just me.

And what kind of response did C-Span get? Nothing formal yet, but Speaker Pelosi and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D,MD), among others, appeared before the cameras in the video below. Wait until you hear Speaker Pelosi’s response about Obama’s campaign promises. That’s a good one. And Rep. Van Hollen goes on at some length about the process behind the Healthcare bill. I suggest you not drink or eat anything while he is speaking. Just a suggestion. Then it goes back to Speaker Pelosi. Does it ever get funny around the 7:45 mark:

Okay, just HOW is it that none of their heads exploded while they stood up there lying through their teeth? Mr. Van Hollen’s voice did go up and crack, a tell-tale sign he’s lying, and Pelosi just blathered on with impunity.

I might add, yes, there were all kinds of Town Halls, Mr. Van Hollen, and the vast majority of people then told you and your colleagues that We. Do. Not. Want. This. Bill. As. Crafted. We have been saying it, screaming it, writing, it, and phoning it in, Rep. Van Hollen. The problem is, y’all aren’t listening. Even today, the majority of Americans do not want this policy you are about to shove down our throats.

This certainly explains another poll, that the majority of Americans think Congress is doing a poor job. Yeah. No kidding.

Oh, wait, maybe there’s another possibility for the La-La Land response by the giggly Speaker of the House. Perhaps Nancy just doesn’t understand the word. That is the only possible explanation I can think of to explain her emphatic insistence that this has been the most transparent process EVER. Either that, or I’m thinking really, really good drugs. Considering her giddy, giggly self, I am inclined to the latter. Ahem.

In case you didn’t catch what she and Rep. Hollen said, this aptly entitled article,
Nancy Pelosi’s Response, has it:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) defended Congress’ work on a healthcare bill Tuesday saying the process has displayed historic transparency, just as C-SPAN mounts an effort to open the negotiations.

C-SPAN wrote a letter to congressional leaders Tuesday asking that TV cameras be allowed to film negotiations to reconcile the House and Senate versions of healthcare reform legislation.

But Pelosi said Congress has already been transparent throughout the process.

“There has never been a more open process for any legislation,” Pelosi said at a press conference.

Pelosi also hinted that holding informal negotiations–likely without TV cameras–might be the most practical way to push the legislation through.

“We will do what is necessary to pass the bill,” Pelosi said.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), assistant to the Speaker, said the healthcare bill had been “subjected to unprecedented level of public scrutiny.”

Pressed on whether C-SPAN cameras would be allowed in negotiations, Van Hollen hedged.

“We don’t even know if there’s going to be a conference committee,” he said, alluding to the likelihood that Democrats will reconcile the two bills behind closed doors.

Oh, yes, unprecedented “public scrutiny.” Seems to me Rep. Van Hollen has been smoking a bit too much of that Hopium if closed-door, often partisan, meetings in which decisions are made to payoff Big Pharma (Obama – before the official work on the Healthcare Bill even got started), the insurance industry, and to force taxes on the middle class that will make it the working poor class. Staggering. Again, Rep. Van Hollen, we have said – CLEARLY – that we do not want this bill of yours. (The Comments after this article are mighty telling. I didn’t see a Pro-Pelosi one among them. Here’s the Link if you’d like to see for yourself.)

Oh, and the White House? If you had to guess, what do you think Obama would do? If you guessed avoidance, you’d be right. If you wish to read Robert Weasel Gibbs’ slippery response to queries about the C-Span letter, click HERE. If you have a strong stomach, or high threshold for bullshit, that is.

Here’s the reality of the situation:

You tell it, Johhny Mac. Transparency on this issue, with this Congress, is simply non-existent. Oh, and Mr. Lamb? I wouldn’t be holding my breath for Nancy, Harry, or Barry to let the cameras in anytime soon…

To the Health Care Industry, Big Pharma, and a few select states. Yes, in the wee hours of the morning (okay, 7:00 a.m.), the Senate voted to pass the Health-Care-less-what-the-people-and-physicians-say Bill. Oh, yes – what a banner day. The Senate rammed through a bill so fraught with problems it would be laughable if it didn’t have the potential to affect so many in this country.

But, one person who is very happy about this early morning vote was Barack Obama. Now he can do what he does best – vacation. Yep, he was waiting to make sure this backroom, strong-arm, possibly unConstitutional bill to pass the Senate before going to Hawaii for the holidays. I am sure he is all plumb tuckered from his trip to Norway and Copenhagen in such a short amount of time, and his constant tv appearances. Poor baby, I am sure he is EXHAUSTED.

Obama got what he wanted thus far – oh, no – not any of the things on which he campaigned, mind you. No, he got a Health Care Bill with his name on it to pad his record, assuming that we aren’t smart enough to actually care what the hell is IN it. All he cares about is being able to brag that it happened, not what it will do to the country. Next step, the House of Representatives to jive the two bills together just in time for the State of the Union?

Not if this Representative has anything to say about it, though. And this one is actually a Democrat. I am not referring to Stupak, but to Louise Slaughter (D/NY). I know, I was surprised, too, when I saw this article from CNN, A Democrat’s View From he House: Senate Bill Isn’t Health Reform. Dang, she better be careful of any presents left at her door by Rahm and Harry. Ahem. I have to say, it is mighty courageous of her to speak out like this, and isn’t that a sad commentary, that it would require courage? We’ve seen what happens if a Democrat doesn’t toe the line (“We’re keeping score, brother,” – Obama). No doubt. That’s the Chicago-way.

But Slaughter isn’t from Chicago. She’s from New York:

CNN Editor’s note: Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, a Democrat, represents the 28th Congressional District of New York. Slaughter is the first woman to chair the House Rules Committee and the only microbiologist in Congress.

The Senate health care bill is not worthy of the historic vote that the House took a month ago.

Even though the House version is far from perfect, it at least represents a step toward our goal of giving 36 million Americans decent health coverage.

But under the Senate plan, millions of Americans will be forced into private insurance company plans, which will be subsidized by taxpayers. That alternative will do almost nothing to reform health care but will be a windfall for insurance companies. Is it any surprise that stock prices for some of those insurers are up recently?

I do not want to subsidize the private insurance market; the whole point of creating a government option is to bring prices down. Insisting on a government mandate to have insurance without a better alternative to the status quo is not true reform.

Amen, sister. Right there with ya. Oh, and that whole taxation thing? That will happen immediately even though this program isn’t set to start until 2014. I gotta tell you, considering how much we already pay (including how much MORE we have to pay since we can’t be married, about $2,500 a year), I don’t really care to be shelling out more money to pay for OTHER people’s private health insurance. BUt that’s just me. Oh, and maybe Slaughter:

By eliminating the public option, the government program that could spark competition within the health insurance industry, the Senate has ended up with a bill that isn’t worthy of its support.

The public option is the part of our reform effort that will lower costs, improve the delivery of health care services and force insurance companies to offer rates and services that are reasonable.

Although the art of legislating involves compromise, I believe the Senate went off the rails when it agreed with the Obama Administration to water down the reform bill and no longer include the public option.

But that’s not the only thing wrong with the Senate’s version of the health care bill.

Under that plan, insurance companies can punish older people, charging them much higher rates than the House bill would allow.

In the House, we fought hard to repeal McCarran-Ferguson, the antitrust exemption that insurance companies have enjoyed for years. We did that because we believed firmly that those Fortune 500 corporations should not enjoy special treatment.

Yet the Senate bill does not include that provision — despite assurances from some members that they will seek to add it. By ending that protection, we will be able to go after insurance companies with federal penalties for misleading advertising or dishonest business practices.

The House bill would cover 96 percent of legal residents, while the Senate covers 94 percent. Compared with the House bill, the Senate’s bill makes it much easier for employers to avoid the responsibility of providing insurance for their workers.

And of course, the Senate bill did not remove the onerous choice language intended to appeal to anti-abortion forces.

Now don’t get me wrong; the current House and Senate bills are a significant improvement over the status quo. Given the hard path to reform and the political realities of next year, there is a sizable group within Congress that wants to simply cut any deal that works and call it a success. Many previous efforts have failed, and the path to reform is littered with unsuccessful efforts championed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Bill Clinton.

Supporters of the weak Senate bill say “just pass it — any bill is better than no bill.”

I strongly disagree — a conference report is unlikely to sufficiently bridge the gap between these two very different bills.

It’s time that we draw the line on this weak bill and ask the Senate to go back to the drawing board. The American people deserve at least that.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Louise Slaughter.

I disagree, too. Do it right the first time. DO it so that physicians all across the country don’t give up their practices. Do it so that the middle class won’t be carrying the burden. Do it so that Medicare isn’t cut. Do it so that it truly benefits the people of this country, not just to get it done to get it done. It’s too important to be shoved through like this.

How about taking back this present to the Health Care industry and Big Pharma, and go back to the Drawing Board in the New Year? That would work for me, and the majority of my fellow Americans.

You tell ‘em, Senator Graham!! I admit, even when I was a far lefty Democrat (now Independent), I couldn’t help but be impressed by Senator Graham.

I may not agree with him on everything, but I sure as hell agree with his interpretation above. I also agree with his call for a Constitutional review by the SC Attorney General regarding the Nebraska Buy-off:

This article found in my local newspaper provides a more comprehensive explanation of Graham’s request:

Graham Wants Investigation

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham said Sunday that he wants South Carolina’s top prosecutor to investigate a deal that helped secure the 60th vote needed to pass a Democratic health care bill through the Senate.

Blasting Senate Democrats for what he called “backroom deals that amount to bribes,” Graham found much to complain about in their health care bill. He was particularly irked that the senator who provided that final vote to head off a Republican filibuster, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, cut a deal in which the federal government pays his state’s share of the cost for new Medicaid recipients.

Graham, a South Carolina Republican, called on state Attorney General Henry McMaster to review the constitutionality of the deal, and a McMaster spokesman said he looks forward to meeting with Graham to discuss it.

“There is one state in the union where new enrollees for Medicaid will be signed up and it won’t cost anybody in that state money,” Graham said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“A lot of people, Republicans and Democrats, are upset by this,” Graham said. “Is it constitutional? I want the attorney general of South Carolina to look at this.”

Nelson, who skirted the issue in a news conference Saturday, confirmed the deal in a CNN interview Sunday. But he said he didn’t ask for special favors…

Click HERE if you wish to read the rest of the article.

Senator Graham is by no means alone in his disgust for the way this Health “Care” bill has come about, and its resemblance to “Chicago-style politics.” This article by the Chicago Tribune (!) certainly supports that supposition: How Health Lobbyists Influenced Reform Bill; Former staffers of lawmakers from Harry Reid to Mitch McConnell push clients’ agenda. Uh huh. What a big ol’ surprise – that this bill being shoved down our throats was crafted by LOBBYISTS:

David Nexon had a big problem. An early version of national health care legislation contained a $40 billion tax aimed squarely at members of the medical device trade association he represents.

Nexon, a former adviser to the late Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy, went to work. He marshaled 14 people like himself — lobbyists who were once congressional aides, many of them from staffs of congressional leaders or committees that had a hand in crafting the health care overhaul.

When Senate Democrats unveiled their bill in mid-November, Nexon’s handiwork was evident. The tax on device-makers was still large — $20 billion — but only half what it might have been without the efforts of Nexon and his fellow lobbyists.

Nexon’s team is an illustration of how deeply the health care industry has embedded itself on Capitol Hill, using former aides of lawmakers and ex-lawmakers themselves.

An analysis of public documents by Northwestern University’s Medill News Service in partnership with the Tribune Newspapers Washington Bureau and the Center for Responsive Politics found a revolving door between Capitol Hill staffers and lobbying jobs for companies with a stake in health care legislation.

At least 166 former aides from the nine congressional leadership offices and five committees involved in shaping health overhaul legislation — along with at least 13 former lawmakers — registered to represent at least 338 health care clients since the beginning of last year, according to the analysis.

Their health care clients spent $635 million on lobbying over the past two years, the study shows.

The total of insider lobbyists jumps to 278 when non-health-care firms that reported lobbying on health issues are added in, the analysis found.

My blood is boiling now; how about yours? Better take your high blood pressure medication, then:

Part of the lobbying pressure on current members of Congress and staffers comes from the powerful lure of post-congressional job possibilities.

“There’s always a worry they may be thinking about their future employment opportunities when dealing with these issues, particularly with health care, because the stakes are so high and the breadth of the issues — pharmacies, hospitals, doctors,” said Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz.

Lobbyists’ earnings can dwarf congressional salaries, which currently top out at $174,000 annually for lawmakers and $156,000 for aides, though committee staff members can earn slightly more.

In the health care showdown, insider lobbying influence has magnified the clout of corporate interests and helped steer the debate away from a public insurance option, despite many polls indicating majority support from Americans, according to Rutgers University political scientist Ross Baker.

“It imposes a kind of conservative bias on the discussion,” said Baker, himself a former Senate staffer.

The lineup of insiders working for clients with health care interests includes at least 14 former aides to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and at least 13 former aides to Montana Democratic Sen. Max Baucus, the chairman of the Finance Committee and a key overseer of the health care overhaul.

This is just shocking on its face, isn’t it? I gues I shouldn’t be at all surprised that a bunch of these people worked for the same ones trying to ram this through before anyone has had a chance to read the damn thing in its entirety:

Nexon, who is now senior executive vice president of the Advanced Medical Technology Association, is among at least a half-dozen former Kennedy aides lobbying on health care.

Nexon acknowledged the value of congressional connections, “but in the end, it’s not who I know, it’s what I know.”

It makes sense to hire former staffers for the health care showdown because they tend to be “more generalists, dealing with a broad range of issues,” something that is in demand for legislation that sprawls across at least a half-dozen federal agencies and encompasses issues ranging from tax policy to hospital reimbursement rates, according to Nexon. But specific issues also get specialized help. Earlier this year, the Christian Science Church hired a former Kennedy staffer, Carolyn Osolinik, and three of her colleagues at the Mayer Brown law firm, all veterans of Capitol Hill. The firm has been paid at least $110,000 so far to push a provision requiring insurers to consider covering Christian Science prayer treatments.

Phil Davis, a senior official of the church, said the church wanted access to decision makers. “The noise level goes sky high. It’s hard to get in to talk to people,” he said.

The largest insider lobbying cadre belongs to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, which employs at least 26 former congressional members and staffers, according to Medill/CRP research.

Two other drug interests, biotech firm Amgen Inc. and the Biotechnology Industry Organization trade group, with at least 24 and 16 insiders respectively, ranked second and fourth among reported hiring over the past two years of lawmakers’ former staffers and members of committees considered in the analysis.

“The numbers shouldn’t surprise anyone,” said Ken Johnson, a PhRMA senior vice president. “Former staffers have a unique understanding of how the legislative process works. And when you are trying to advocate on behalf of smart public policies, you want smart people on your team.”

But Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause, a nonpartisan, nonprofit watchdog group, had a harsher assessment, blaming “a toxic cocktail of insiders and money” for short-circuiting a government-run plan that would have competed with private insurers.

“We’ll get a bill. And the president will sign it. But it’ll be less than the country deserves,” said Edgar, a former six-term member of the House.

Health care lobbyists increase their effectiveness by strategically targeting their campaign contributions or the donations of the interests they represent, Edgar said.

But, but, but – I thought lobbyists were going to have no part in an Obama Administration!! Ahahahahaha – and if anyone actually bought THAT line of crapola from Obama, I have some waterfront property in Wyoming to sell you because there is more:

Health industry contributions to congressional candidates have more than doubled so far this decade, rising to $127 million in the 2008 election cycle from $56 million in the 2000 election, with disproportionate sums going to the party in power and to members of committees that oversee health care, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

But lobbyist and former Kennedy staffer Andrew Rosenberg said political conditions, not big money or the predispositions of lobbyists sidelined a public option.

“You could see this coming from a long way off. The Democratic Party is now the big tent party. They have to get to 60 votes. That is the reality,” Rosenberg said. “It was going to have to be something that appeals to moderates” opposed to expanding government-run health insurance. (Tribune Newspapers’ Tom Hamburger and Joe Markman contributed to this report.)

So now you know – Senator Lindsey Graham has it exactly right – this policy was not crafted with US in mind. It was crafted by and for the health care insurers and those who are connected to them. They wrote this thing that the Democrats are hell-bent on getting through this year. They, and the Democrats who are getting money from them, are the ones who will most definitely benefit most. Because from everything I have heard and read, WE will be the ones who lose the most while paying the most.

And if all of these shenanigans to buy votes aren’t unConstitutional, they are most definitely unethical. Seems like the only change that has come to Washington is bolder cheating. Yep, sounds like “Chicago-style politics” to me!

Who wants to place bets on whether or not Charles Krauthammer will have to eat his hat given the dollars Reid claims will be saved by this particular Health Care Reform bill? I will go out on a limb and say I think Dr. Krauthammer’s hat is safe.

What, then, is to be done? Well, Dr. Krauthammer thinks both bills should be killed, and we need to start all over again:

The United States has the best health care in the world — but because of its inefficiencies, also the most expensive. The fundamental problem with the 2,074-page Senate health-care bill (as with its 2,014-page House counterpart) is that it wildly compounds the complexity by adding hundreds of new provisions, regulations, mandates, committees and other arbitrary bureaucratic inventions.

Worse, they are packed into a monstrous package without any regard to each other. The only thing linking these changes — such as the 118 new boards, commissions and programs — is political expediency. Each must be able to garner just enough votes to pass. There is not even a pretense of a unifying vision or conceptual harmony.

The result is an overregulated, overbureaucratized system of surpassing arbitrariness and inefficiency. Throw a dart at the Senate tome:

– You’ll find mandates with financial penalties — the amounts picked out of a hat.

– You’ll find insurance companies (who live and die by their actuarial skills) told exactly what weight to give risk factors, such as age. Currently insurance premiums for 20-somethings are about one-sixth the premiums for 60-somethings. The House bill dictates the young shall now pay at minimum one-half; the Senate bill, one-third — numbers picked out of a hat.

– You’ll find sliding scales for health-insurance subsidies — percentages picked out of a hat — that will radically raise marginal income tax rates for middle- class recipients, among other crazy unintended consequences.

Okay, I already have a headache just reading this. No wonder Krauthammer reaches this conclusion:

The bill is irredeemable. It should not only be defeated. It should be immolated, its ashes scattered over the Senate swimming pool.

Then do health care the right way — one reform at a time, each simple and simplifying, aimed at reducing complexity, arbitrariness and inefficiency.

First, tort reform. This is money — the low-end estimate is about half a trillion per decade — wasted in two ways. Part is simply hemorrhaged into the legal system to benefit a few jackpot lawsuit winners and an army of extravagantly rich malpractice lawyers such as John Edwards.

The rest is wasted within the medical system in the millions of unnecessary tests, procedures and referrals undertaken solely to fend off lawsuits — resources wasted on patients who don’t need them and which could be redirected to the uninsured who really do.

In the 4,000-plus pages of the two bills, there is no tort reform. Indeed, the House bill actually penalizes states that dare “limit attorneys’ fees or impose caps on damages.” Why? Because, as Howard Dean has openly admitted, Democrats don’t want “to take on the trial lawyers.” What he didn’t say — he didn’t need to — is that they give millions to the Democrats for precisely this kind of protection.

Tort reform has been a common refrain for what is glaringly absent from this Health Care Reform bill, and one component conspicuously absent. But that’s not the only problem:

Second, even more simple and simplifying, abolish the prohibition against buying health insurance across state lines.

Some states have very few health insurers. Rates are high. So why not allow interstate competition? After all, you can buy oranges across state lines. If you couldn’t, oranges would be extremely expensive in Wisconsin, especially in winter.

And the answer to the resulting high Wisconsin orange prices wouldn’t be the establishment of a public option — a federally run orange-growing company in Wisconsin — to introduce “competition.” It would be to allow Wisconsin residents to buy Florida oranges.

But neither bill lifts the prohibition on interstate competition for health insurance. Because this would obviate the need — the excuse — for the public option, which the left wing of the Democratic Party sees (correctly) as the royal road to fully socialized medicine.

That’s an interesting take on it. And still more:

Third, tax employer-provided health insurance. This is an accrued inefficiency of 65 years, an accident of World War II wage controls. It creates a $250 billion annual loss of federal revenues — the largest tax break for individuals in the entire federal budget.

This reform is the most difficult to enact, for two reasons. The unions oppose it. And the Obama campaign savaged the idea when John McCain proposed it during last year’s election.

Insuring the uninsured is a moral imperative. The problem is that the Democrats have chosen the worst possible method — a $1 trillion new entitlement of stupefying arbitrariness and inefficiency.

The better choice is targeted measures that attack the inefficiencies of the current system one by one — tort reform, interstate purchasing and taxing employee benefits. It would take 20 pages to write such a bill, not 2,000 — and provide the funds to cover the uninsured without wrecking both U.S. health care and the U.S. Treasury. letters@charleskrauthammer.com)

I tend to agree with Krauthammer – I think we need to deep-six these two bills and start over. Additionally, I do not want anything in these bills that has NOTHING to do with Health Care Reform. No pork, no bribes, nothing that is not strictly related to issues of health care reform. But that’s just me. At the very least, both houses need to start over, and do it right this time, not throwing together whatever they can in the shortest amount of time possible. This is a serious issue, and merits serious consideration, not political expediency.

If Congress does THAT, starts completely over, leaves out the pork, does what’s best for American citizens and not their respective political parties, I’ll eat MY hat…