Oct 28 2009
Centrists Now Control Future Of Obamacare
As I noted when Sen Snowe allowed the health care bill in the Senate Finance Committee to pass the centrists now control the path of the health care debate, and they are rising up in opposition to government rationed health care (a.k.a., the “public option”).
And not just any centrists but one who makes liberals see red: Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), who said Tuesday that he’d back a GOP attempt to block the bill from moving to final passage.
Lieberman’s comments dealt a major setback to Reid’s push to pass a bill with a public insurance option, so much so that other Senate Democrats — notably Delaware Sen. Tom Carper — were already sketching out a Plan B to get the votes, most likely through a more watered-down version of the public option.
It wasn’t just Lieberman. Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), who faces a tough reelection, said Tuesday she was reluctant to sign on with Reid’s plan, too. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) won’t give any answer until he sees the final language.
It is well past time the Political Industrial Complex (both sides) in DC figure out which group will guide this country into the future. It will not be the far left or the far right. It will be us in the center who do not want extreme solutions and do not appreciate being vilified for being willing to discuss more reasonable options.
For example, Laura Ingraham has demeaning and arrogant effort going called ‘adopt a moderate‘, like centrists need guidance from the fringe? How about just respecting centrists who don’t hold extreme or fringe views? How about just getting rid of the personal insults when you disagree. How about ‘adopting professional respect’ for diverse views?
Classic example of an insulting misstep from ‘true conservatives’. Obamacare is falling apart and they still don’t engender much confidence as a viable political option.
AJ, I hate to have to point it out, but the ‘moderates’ have been just as eager, if not more so, to demand an ideological purge as anyone on the Right.
My own observation has been that arch-conservatives are the most tolerant of other opinions, and that the further you go to the Left, the less tolerance you see.
The “Fringe” on the “Far Right” believe in following the Constitution as Written. Where do you stand?
They also believe in amending the Constitution, rather than ignoring it. Where do you stand?
They also believe in the Rule of Law. Where do you stand?
Ya, the “Centrist” control the Obama plans. Will they be guided by the above, or will they be guided by the blowing wind.
AJ: How about ‘adopting professional respect’ for diverse views?
If the diverse views violate the above, what then?
Many have talked of the un Constitutionality of requiring everyone to have Health Insurance. I’d say, in order to achieve this, we must amend the Constitution, as our “Rights” are enumerated there in.
Diverse views are one thing, following the Constitution is quite an other.
Mike M. Your correct sir!
Many argued that TARP was un constitutional. But the “Centrist” got it passed. Look what it lead to…more un constitutional behavior. We now have over 600 once private companies under Government Control.
The “Centrist” gave us the Prescription Drug Plan for the Blue Hairs. Look what that costs in true liability. It aint 400- 800 Million or Billion
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Yes, as I’ve stated, more “Centrist” will destroy the country. Our Debt is beyond payable now.
I’m reading F.A. Hayaks The Road To Surfdom, from the 1930’s. It reads like today, honestly.
Next, Who Killed The Constitution? Hopefully that will be started next week.
I’ll leave for today, everyone, ENJOY YOUR DAY!
stevevvs,
My stand is you are the epitome of what is wrong with the far right. As if only they believe in the constitution.
pathetic really, how they have to prop their egos up with unfounded arrogance.
Mike M,
As one who has been on the receiving end of all the wondrous tolerance I can tell you that is the silliest claim I have seen in years!
AJ, I was like you. I didn’t like their approach until I began to read many of what the Founding Fathers and their favorite writers wrote. I am beginning to understand what they are saying and that what they are saying is correct.
It’s similar to how they preach Christianity to us. Their approach was a put off until I learn that they just may be right after all.
I am coming away with a message from the true conservatives that our federal government must be limited and self-governed and be frugal with our money with the focus on strong national defense. And that is the only way our natural rights endowed by our Creator can be protected.
No way the majority of the American Public can ever endorse this message. Not even with this 9/12 and tea party movement, I’m afraid.
Why not? Because we don’t hold our senators and representatives accountable to us. They are accountable to lobbyists and special interests.
I began to watch “IOUSA” DVD last night. Didn’t finish watching it. I was falling asleep. The first part focused on so many speeches given by the US presidents since FDR. All of them gave speeches on balanced budgets and deficits.
I felt really embarrassed listening to all of them giving the same message but doing nothing about it. It has nothing to do with the two party system. It has nothing to do with the right or left.
ALL of them from both parties were giving the exact same message; yet, they PUSHED for increased spending, expanded government. The Republican Presidents reversed a few things but not enough.
Tim Cox of GOOOH pointed to a study that indicated that the longer our senators and representatives stay in office, the more corrupt and wasteful they are with our money. TERM LIMITS!!
AJ: I know this is off topic, but the launch of the Ares1-x was spectacular. I was disappointed that we had cloudy weather down in Ft. Laud and did not see the vapor trail, but all in all it was cool.
( I know you live close to MD. maybe you could talk to Daniel Snyder and ask him to take Ted Ginn Jr. off our hands, we will gladly accept a 7th round draft choice)
There is an interesting greeting of one African tribe to another I read about many years ago. They say “I see you”.
The “Tea Party” people were saying to our legislators, can you see us? Some, not many replied, I see you. If it hadn’t been for Glen Beck I’m not sure anyone would have been able to say “I see you”. Americans are say we know we elected you and you had better see us, not the special interest groups, the lobbyists, but we the people. It was an amazing happening in this day and age with all the ways of communicating, people took to their feet and showed up as Americans, as freedom loving peoples, as concerned citizens that our national debt is growing so big. Those people had an agenda, not necessarily republican or democrat, but an deeply held belief in the American way.
Americans are saying, you had better see us, because we vote for America.
Where Republicans AND Democrats have gone wrong is that most have more loyalty to their party (even over lobbyists and special interests) than to the people who voted them into office. That is what the Tea Party movement is about: voters saying “I sent you to Washington D.C. –you serve at MY pleasure, not the other way around.”
Republicans do not have a message that differentiates them CONSISTENTLY from the Democratic Party. They spent money and expanded the government like — like LBJ Democrats. So, people do not see a difference between the political parties. I think many people just voted for ‘change’ because it sounded good and what could happen?
The major difference used to be role of government – big versus limited. The Republican party gave up that message. They LIKED governing big. So, all that leaves the rest of the party to do is point fingers and call each other names – like RINO or pure or fringe. So, Republicans are basically degrees of ‘Democrats’ because they do not believe in a real fundamental difference or have a fundamental agreement among themselves that differs them from Democrats – just a party name.
Can we get back to that message? There are some things the federal government should definitely do and the degree of federal involvement in individual lives should be the discussion. That is where our differences should lie, not in calling each other names.
And while I am at it, I’ll add one more thing I believe is an important discussion point that should be brought up more. I won’t explain it well and perhaps someone can take up the thought and pursue it. Conservative philosophy, lifestyle, beliefs (what ever you want to call it) involves individuals – me, my life, my decisions, my family. I can be successful or not on my individual set goals. Liberal philosophies require a change in world order; everyone’s participation is required in order to be successful – global warming, universal healthcare. My perfect world is made of decisions I make for myself. A liberal’s perfect world requires me making no decisions for myself but falling in line with all of their goals, beliefs and ideals. They cannot have a perfect world without my participation and that is why they hate it so badly when I do not agree with them. I haven’t just rejected a bad idea; I’ve rejected them.
I keep hearing that Bush expanded the government like a LBJ democrat. If the housing bubble hadn’t of burst the Bush deficit would have been $285 billion, and going down. Just how did Bush spend like a LBJ democrat? Other then the Medicare drug program, drugs that are gotten through private insurance, what was the expansion?
Kathie, it was a lot of little things. Earmarks. Regulations. Medicare drugs. More regulations. No Child Left Behind. Still MORE regulations. Foreign aid. Bush spent on ANYTHING that was not related to national security.
The military, of course, took it in the face. The Dirty Little Secret of the Bush administration was the DOD budget as it stood on 10 September 2001. There was a known budget shortfall of $50 billion…and Bush generously was calling for an increase of $18 billion. Forty cents of help for every dollar of need.
I’ll concede that Bush did not conceal much of this. He ran as a center-right candidate. What was disappointing was that he defined ‘compassionate conservatism’ as ‘spend like a liberal for socially conservative causes’.
Which is anathema to the entire libertarian wing of the conservative movement. As well as fueling a lot of disputes over what causes get funded.
Bush was responsible for Medicare drugs, private insurance plan, and No Child Left Behind, what regulations are you talking about? And you have a problem with Foreign aid? Those things make Bush an LBJ liberal? Congress is responsible for the rest. Still Bush would have a deficit of $285 billion. We need not talk about the defense budget during a time of war. Mike, I still don’t get the LBJ liberal!
I think ideas are what compared Bush to LBJ. Bush implemented or expanded socialistic programs. He did try to privatize some portions of SS but the Democrats wouldn’t let him. He ran as a compassionate conservative, not a true conservative.
I think AJ is correct in one respect. The moderates will determine the outcome of the Obamacare debate. However, I disagree that they “control” it. I think it is the Tea Party people who control it…..and all the pressure they have been putting on their Representatives. Like Kathie said, the “I see you” message has gotten through. We will have to see how the debate turns out. The only Dem who understands there is no difference between the cloture vote and the final vote is Sen. Evan Bayh. He is correct, of course. There are rumors that some of those “moderate Dems” will vote for cloture; then vote against the bill for political cover…..but, still allowing the bill to pass. Only Bayh has stated the obvious on this….the votes are the same if it allows the bill to pass.
We have a long way to go, though. I think you can count the true moderates up there on the Hill on one hand and not use all your fingers. Some of it is smoke and mirrors and game playing. I’ve seen too many so called “moderates” disappoint at the end of the day. They give in to party loyalty and simply play a game (I’m talking about both parties, here).
Please, do not talk about moderates as if they represent some idylic position in the debate. You talk as if negotiation is everything.
Remember, this heath care legislation was all set to be bullied through Congress at the end of June.
If it had not been for the immoderates on the right we would now be screaming about how did we ever let a 1500 page health care law be enacted without reading it first.
The immoderate right gave the squishy middle the opportunity to pretend it will make a difference.
As it is the mid point in this debate is far to the left of center so any negotiation will probably arrive just where the socialists intended.
The moderates will decide the fate of Obamacare and probably cap and trade as well. And Ingraham can be snotty, but that is part of what people pay her for.
And before conservatives turn those noses up at the mushy middle, they should realize that they need the middle. In fact the center right is where most people are.
luker:
Bush never pretended to be anything but what he was….and it was not just the Democrats who would not let Bush reform social security, a lot of those socalled conservatives out there did not have the guts to do it. They like to complain that Bush was not conservative enough for them, but when it got right down to it, they went belly up.