Thursday, December 31, 2009
By the way, perhaps he will wish he is in Hawaii given some information about what he may experience tomorrow......Possibly more on this later.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Thanks for the ask, Mike, but we think we'll keep our money.
Nelson's ad has already drawn national attention from the Wall Street Journal and others.
Ben will soon be surprised that his ads covering his sellout will be taken on by others. Expect a response soon.
With that said, Tony Fulton will be on Fox News live tonight at 6:15 p.m. to discuss our Judas and his Cornhusker Kickback. We'd encourage you to watch Tony.
Nelson can run (ads) but he can't run from his treasonous sell out of Nebraskans and we reassert that his career is over come 2012. In fact, maybe his career will be over sooner if some brave legislators give us a constitutional amendment to vote on allowing Nebraskans, like citizens in 18 other states, to impeach/remove a U.S. Senator. Stay tuned.
With that said, here are the latest numbers from Rasmussen:
- Prince of Peace Nobel Laureate President of the World Commissar Barack Hussein Obama now has a negative 16% approval rating with 25% of those surveyed strongly approving of him and 41% strongly disapproving
- 78% of those polled nationally think health care will cost more than projected
- 58% of voters are now opposed to health care reform--that would be the one promoted by Nebraska's own Judas, Ben Nelson
- And in the generic congressional poll, 43% of voters would now support the Republican candidate in their district while only 38% would support the Democrat congressional candidate in their district.
The sad thing is that while these numbers look good for our nation, they represent a response to our nation's future, a future that will take choice in health care away and result in the government making choices for us and rationing part of the ultimate goal of a single payer system; a future that will leave enormous tax burdens on our children and grand children; a future that will result in virtual control of many of our daily choices, and; a future that will result in the deterioration of the greatest nation on earth into one of 180 or so equals as Prince of Peace Nobel Laureate President of the World Commissar Barack Hussein Obama and Nebraska's Judas sellout Ben Nelson see it.....
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Over the last few days we told you that Ben Nelson will run for re-election in 2012. This is based on:
- Nelson's attempt to blame the Cornhusker kickoff on Heineman rather than himself
- Nelson's editorial in the Sunday Omaha World-Herald (a.ka., Douglas Street Rag).
- Nelson's filming of a commercial yesterday to be released soon to explain his vote
- Nelson's ego
We've also told you that Governor Dave Heineman will run for the senate in 2012, after safely being re-elected next whether against Mike Boyle or anyone else.
Now, before you hear it from Rush or others, we have the results of the latest Ben (Judas) Nelson Rasmussen poll which basically says Mort Sullivan could beat Ben (Not really, but had his name been part of the survey we suspect the results would have been similar).
Here are some of the highlights of the Rasmussen Poll:
- If Heineman runs against Nelson he would get 61% of the vote with Nelson getting only 30%.
- Only 17% approve of his Cornhusker Kickback, the deal he made on Medicaid in exchange for his vote
- 64% of Nebraskans oppose the health care bill with 53% strongly opposed.
- "Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters in the state believe that passage of the legislation will hurt the quality of care, and 62% say it will raise costs."
- "If Nelson votes to block final passage of the health care plan, he would still trail Heineman but would be in a much more competitive situation.... When survey respondents were asked how they would vote if Nelson blocks health care reform, 47% still pick Heneman while 37% would vote to keep the incumbent in office. Twenty percent (20%) of those who initially said they’d vote for Heineman say they’d switch to supporting Nelson. Another six percent (6%) of Heineman supporters say they’re not sure what they’d do if Nelson stops the health care plan from becoming law."
- "If Nelson votes to block health care reform, 10% of all voters would prefer a third-party option. Most of those who would prefer a third choice initially said they would vote for Nelson."
- "Overall, 40% of Nebraska voters have a favorable opinion of Nelson while 55% have an unfavorable view. Those figures include 12% with a Very Favorable opinion while 34% hold a Very Unfavorable view."
- "Twenty-six percent (26%) say Nelson has done a good or excellent job in the health care debate. Forty-seven percent (47%) give him poor marks."
- " Forty-two percent (42%) say their senator has been too supportive of President Obama’s agenda while 13% say he’s not been supportive enough. Thirty percent (30%) say he’s got the balance about right."
- "Sixty-five percent (65%) of Nebraska voters say that coverage of abortion should be prohibited in any plan that receives government subsidies. Only six percent (6%) want coverage mandated, while 22% want no requirements either way.
With numbers like these, Nelson would be delusional to think he could run for re-election and win, but for the reasons we noted above we believe he will. He will spend the next three years trying to prove he really is an independent minded Nebraskan by voting against cap-and-trade and immigration reform and by becoming a fiscal hawk.
Hopefully, Nebraskans won't be fooled by Judas Nelson. His sell out for his pieces of silver will have much more far reaching consequences for their health care and that of their children and grand children then can even begin to be estimated and the financial consequences will be devastating for the economy of the nation.
For more on the survey, see: http://mail.live.com/default.aspx?wa=wsignin1.0
Monday, December 28, 2009
"South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster on Monday stressed that Senate Democrats' move to cover Nebraska's new Medicaid patients in full could represent "corruption."
In an interview with Fox News this morning, McMaster said Democrats included the provision in the chamber's health care bill purely to buy Sen. Ben Nelson's (D-Neb.) much-needed vote. It is ultimately unconstitutional, McMaster added, as it places a disproportionate burden on the 49 other states to cover Nebraska's Medicaid costs.
"As far as we know, the only distinction made for Nebraska with Sen. Nelson was to buy his vote," said McMaster, who announced he would probe the constitutionality of that deal last week."We think that represents corruption, a culture of corruption, [and] we're very concerned about it," he said. "It's going to cost 49 states money to have to pay Nebraska's share, and we think that is unconstitutional."
Here's what he had to say (before asking us to send him some money):
"I want to see Congress pass meaningful reform that:
Expands care and drives down costs for businesses and families.
Provides patients the freedom to choose their own doctor and plan without causing anyone to lose current coverage.
Stops insurance companies from denying coverage based on a pre-existing condition or dropping coverage when a person becomes sick.
Ensures that no bureaucrat, either in Washington or at an insurance company, ever comes between a doctor, a patient and the right treatment.
Lee Terry and Washington Republicans think they can beat us by opposing health care reform."
He is and will be a candidate for re-election in 2012. It's up to Nebraskans to make sure he doesn't get re-elected.
I know you won’t give two-seconds to this letter, but I had to write it. I’m a primary care doctor in YOUR state, and you sold me out. I didn’t slog through 4 years of college and 4 years of medical school and 3 years of residency just to have you hand my career and my patient/doctor relationships over to government lifers. Your gutless acquiescence to Obama and Harry Reid and ‘Nanny’ Pelosi will NOT be forgotten.
Thank you, Ben, for forcing doctors like me to earn less than the repairmen who fix our appliances. Case in point: We recently had our dishwasher fixed. The repairman who came to our house charged $65 just to come and ‘diagnose’ the problem, then charged another $180 to ‘fix’ the problem. You and your fellow lawmakers have fixed MY going rate (Medicare) at $35 per-visit. Thank you for securing such a ‘lucrative’ rate for me! Thank you so much for making me–someone with 8 years of education!–make less than a mechanic or appliance repair technician. And thanks especially for falling in line with Obama and the rest of the Democrats to make such a socialist system permanent.
You have my disgust and disdain forever, you socialist-coddling coward.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
The individual who claimed to be 'Bob Smith' is fictitious. He is an Omaha firefighter, but there is no Bob Smith on the fire department and we are told that he authors his comments on one of your city owned computers during paid city time, probably from the fire station at 80th and Dodge.
We don't mind 'Bob' criticizing us, but at least he could do so anonymously-and maybe on his time rather than that of the taxpayers'.
Political humorist P.J. O’Rourke wrote a book about Congress entitled “Parliament of Whores.” As one of U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson’s constituents, I think his actions regarding the so-called health care reform bill make O’Rourke’s title an insult to prostitutes everywhere.
Nelson initially told us that he could not support the Senate version of the bill if it authorized federal tax dollars to fund abortion. Nelson has long claimed to be pro-life. Indeed, he signed into law a ban on partial birth abortion toward the end of his tenure as governor. But he also made some very bad appointments while governor, including naming a pro-abortion woman as his lieutenant governor. I remember confronting him about it during an interview I did with him for an article I was writing. He was defensive about the appointment, and told me that if I asked her I would find that she was not as “pro-abortion as you think she is.”
When I talked to the lieutenant governor, I found her to be a clueless liberal who thought abortion was illegal after the first trimester. “With all due respect,” I said, “what do you think the whole debate over partial birth abortion is all about?” Her response shocked me. “I never thought about it,” she said blankly. And Ben Nelson had appointed this woman to be our lieutenant governor. After that, I never trusted Nelson’s judgment again.
Few of us who know him believe his denial of reports that the Chicago gangsters running the White House threatened him with the closing of Offutt Air Force Base, the headquarters of the Strategic Command — located in Bellevue, Nebraska, and a crucial part of our national defense — if he didn’t play ball on health care.
When Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman pointed out that the bill would put additional Medicaid costs on the states — all states — Nelson’s response was to cut a deal with Majority Leader Harry Reid to exempt Nebraska from ever paying any additional Medicaid costs associated with the passage of this bureaucratic monstrosity. Then, adding insult to outrage, Nelson’s office started calling his backroom deal “the Heineman exemption,” as though the forthright governor, not the compromised senator, was somehow the initiator of this sleazy agreement.
“I’ll be happy to remove this language if the governor asks me to,” Nelson announced smugly. One could almost hear the collective wretch of Nebraskans as we watched our own senator capitulating to the desires of the president — all the while blaming our governor, who was selflessly trying to do the right thing. It was a disgusting spectacle to witness.
Governor Heineman, to his credit, is not backing down. In a letter to Nelson’s office, he wrote:
“Regarding the unfunded Medicaid mandate, Nebraskans expect a fair deal, not a special deal. If the U.S. Senate plans to address the unfunded mandates issue, all states must receive fair and equal treatment. Neither Nevada, Vermont, Massachusetts, Louisiana, Nebraska, nor any other state should receive a special Medicaid deal that is not available to other states. It is imperative that every state is treated fairly and equally or all special deals must be removed.
“However, the bottom line remains this bill is bad news for Nebraska and bad news for America. The effects on our State and the Nation will be disastrous, and Nebraskans are asking you to stop this bill in its tracks. Nebraska’s businesses, as expressed by the State Chamber, are worried about middle class tax increases and the loss of jobs. Nebraska’s seniors are outraged about Medicare cuts. Nebraska’s pro-life community is furious with your compromise. Nebraska families are concerned about future increased premiums.
“Senator Nelson, Nebraskans are strongly opposed to this bill. As Governor, I urge you to reconsider your position and vote ‘No’ on the next cloture vote.”
The rest, as they say, is history. In the end, Nelson jettisoned his pro-life principles, the concerns of Nebraska businesses, and the values of those who put him in office, in favor of a bucket of pork Nebraskans don’t even want. He chose to represent the interests and desires of Barack Obama and Harry Reid rather than those of his constituents, and if his next election were held today, almost anyone could beat him. But his next election isn’t for another three years, and it will be hard trying to keep the white-hot anger of the voters alive until then. For now, though, Ben Nelson has accomplished what no one in recent memory has done (except maybe our former football coach, Bill Callahan). He has made us feel ashamed to be Nebraskans.
© 2009 by Doug Patton
Doug Patton is a former speechwriter and public policy advisor who now works as a freelance writer. His weekly column appears in newspapers across the country and on various Internet websites, including Human Evernts Online and GOPUSA.com, where he is a senior writer and state editor.
Readers can e-mail him at firstname.lastname@example.org.
You can read Hill's column at: http://townhall.com/columnists/AustinHill/2009/12/27/health_care,_barack_obama,_and_the_us_constitution
- The latest Battleground P0ll would seem to indicate that Republicans should have a much better time at the polls next year. We're told by Ed Goeas, President and CEO of the Tarreance Group that, “The political landscape continues to deteriorate for President Obama and the Democrats in Congress, no matter which direction you look; vote intensity, generic ballot, presidential job approval, or issue handling, Republicans have made gains that more than even out the playing field for the 2010 Elections." You can read the latest result's of the this poll at: http://wrgw.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/battleground-poll-favors-republicans-in-2010-election/But beyond that, here are some other conclusions that have been in the news over the last week that further suggest that the Democrats will face a tough time just 10 months from now:
- Democrats have lost two major governorships in 2009, New Jersey and Virgina
- Incumbent Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan may have a serious problem on his hands if Republicans recruit Governor John Hoeven to run for the U.S. Senate in North Dakota next year.
The first Rasmussen Reports Election 2010 telephone survey of likely voters in North Dakota finds the popular Republican governor leading Dorgan by 22 - 58% to 26%. Just six percent (56%) are undecided in that senatorial contest. From: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/north_dakota/election_2010_north_dakota_senatets – 58% to 36%. Just six percent (6%) are undecided in that senatorial contest.
- Harry Reid is behind several potential Republican challengers in Nevada by double digits.
- Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln is behind her potential Republican challengers.
- In Delaware and Illinois Republicans running ahead of their Democrat opponents.
- On the Congressional generic vote Republicans now lead by seven percent.
- Polling reflects that base energy disparity. In the recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, Fifty six percent of Republicans call themselves highly interested in the 2010 election while 46 percent of Democrats say the same.
- Among that highly interested group, Republicans held a 47 percent to 39 percent edge on the generic ballot question -- a broad indicator of the direction the battle for the House is taking.
- Rep. Parker Griffith, a freshman Democrat from Alabama, is switching to the Republican Party. He cites the health care bill as a major reason for his switch, and has a history of conservative votes in the House of Representatives. His district has traditionally leaned left.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
"Oh … I get it now. Obama said he wouldn't raise taxes on middle class Americans. But between unemployment benefits and the health care bill which, remember, loads states up with new, largely unreimbursed, Medicaid liabilities (except for Nebraska which will not have to pay because Harry Reid needed Ben Nelson's vote) states will have to raise taxes which Obama will claim does not violate his pledge."
We think, in fact, that the very accusation by Nelson that it was Governor Heineman who was responsible for the special Nebraska Medicaid treatment/bonus may have been the first salvo in Nelson's re-election campaign since it is hard to believe that Governor Heineman won't now be his opponent for the U.S. Senate in 2012.
We believe that Nelson, engulfed as he is in his arrogance, will run in 2012 regardless of his sell out. We'd only suggest he pay more attention to his re-election polling than he did to that of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that showed 67% of his constituents to be opposed to the Ben Nelson/Harry Reid/Obama Health Care Bill. But then, given his ego, why would he?
"Instead, Nelson caved. The "compromise" he accepted allows states to prohibit the coverage of elective abortions in their insurance exchanges. Which means that Nebraska taxpayers may not be forced to subsidize insurance plans that cover abortions in Nebraska. But they will certainly be required to subsidize such plans in California, New York and many other states.
In the end, Nelson not only surrendered his beliefs, he also betrayed the principle of the Hyde Amendment, which since 1976 has prevented the coverage of elective abortion in federally funded insurance. Nelson not only violated his pro-life convictions, he also may force millions of Americans to violate theirs as well.
I can respect those who are pro-life out of conviction and those who are pro-choice out of conviction. It is more difficult to respect politicians willing to use their deepest beliefs -- and the deepest beliefs of others -- as bargaining chips.
In a single evening, Nelson managed to undermine the logic of Medicaid, abandon three decades of protections under the Hyde Amendment and increase the public stock of cynicism. For what? For the sake of legislation that greatly expands a health entitlement without reforming the health system; that siphons hundreds of billions of dollars out of Medicare instead of using that money to reform Medicare; that imposes seven taxes on Americans making less than $250,000 a year, in direct violation of a presidential pledge; that employs Enron-style accounting methods to inflate future cost savings; that pretends to tame the insurance companies while making insurance companies the largest beneficiaries of reform."
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
"Hours before the Senate's abortion compromise came together last Friday, it looked like things would fall apart. Three Democratic officials familiar with the talks detailed how events unfolded. They spoke on condition of anonymity, because the talks were private.
Obama's health care remake extends coverage to 94 percent of Americans, not including illegal immigrants, and tries to slow increases in medical costs. But in the Senate, Nebraska's Nelson stood in the way. Among his chief objections was his belief that the Senate's restrictions on government funding for abortion were too lax.
The negotiations began at 9:30 a.m. Friday in a suite of offices in the Capitol occupied by Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Steps from the Senate floor, Reid's spacious lair is shielded from inquisitive media. There would be suspense, shuttle diplomacy, hugs, and a call from Obama aboard Air Force One before the day was done.
Among those taking part were Reid, Nelson, Boxer, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina. Nelson and Boxer did not negotiate face-to-face but set up camp in different offices. Schumer, the No. 3 Senate Democrat, shuttled back and forth.
By the middle of the day, Nelson's home-state concerns had been addressed, and the focus turned to abortion. Federal law bans taxpayer funding of abortion, except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. For months, the debate has been how to apply those principles to a new stream of federal subsidies under the health care bill. Senators had previously voted to reject Nelson's attempt to incorporate the more restrictive House language in the Senate bill.
Two alternatives were under discussion in Reid's office. Abortion opponents wanted no coverage in health plans receiving federal subsidies under the bill. Mirroring the House, women would have to buy a separate policy for abortion coverage. Abortion rights supporters wanted to allow plans to offer coverage, but individuals could opt out and get a partial rebate of their premiums. The two sides were deadlocked.
"I don't know how we'll ever solve this," Schumer said, according to one official who was present.
Then Nelson and one of his senior aides decided to try something different. States would be allowed to decide whether or not abortion could be covered by health plans operating in a new insurance marketplace under the bill. Plans covering abortion would have to collect a separate premium for the procedure, directly paid for by the person buying coverage. Premiums for abortion would be kept in a separate account.arguing about a staple," said an official involved. Nelson meant it was acceptable to abortion opponents if supplemental abortion coverage was stapled to an insurance policy, but not if it was spelled out in the body of the policy itself.
By evening, the two sides took a break to consult with their respective constituencies. Nelson left Reid's suite, planning to return at 8:30 p.m. He called a leading anti-abortion activist in Nebraska, but was not able to get a commitment for the deal.
At 9:00 p.m. Nelson had yet to return. At 9:15, still no Nelson. Reid and Schumer started getting nervous. Finally, at 9:30, Nelson turned up. He and Boxer signed off on the deal within a half hour. Nelson came into Reid's office to say he'd hold off on a formal endorsement until the text of deal was released in the morning.
Reid and Nelson started to say goodnight, and wound up hugging each other. Nelson hugged Schumer next and then left.
Obama, aboard Air Force One on his way back from the climate summit in Copenhagen, called with congratulations. Reid put the president on speaker phone so Boxer and Schumer could hear.
After the deal became public Saturday, Nelson was slammed by former allies opposed to abortion. He tells people he feels like he's been bitten by the family dog."
Monday, December 21, 2009
So let’s look at the dollars and “sense”: Mr. Mass states: “The Senate bill takes strides toward lowering health care costs” – Logically, how can adding 118 new government agencies lower costs? Pardon my cynicism, but The Department of Energy was created in 1977, in part, to move us towards energy independence. It now employees 16,000 people and our energy imports have risen from 28% in ‘82 to 66.19% in ‘07 with an annual budget of $24 billion. Can you imagine the waste and costs associated with 118 new agencies if they are equally ineffective and expansive?
He continues: “. . . . . and holding insurance companies accountable.” – Suggesting that they are too profitable? Health insurance companies had an average profit margin of 2.2% of sales in ‘08. HealthSpring had the highest return with 5.4%. This was less than Tupperware, Clorox bleach, Molson & Coors beers with railroads at 12.6%. 12.6% isn’t excessive but 2.2% is?
“Senate bill will reduce health care costs by making delivery of care more efficient, hospitals safer and doctors more knowledgeable about the impact of different treatment options.” Pardon me? Because of new legislation and 118 new agencies suddenly businesses are more efficient, hospitals are safer and doctors are more educated? Gimme a break! I suppose I should call my Senator the next time I’m not feeling well?
”The House . . . has passed legislation that will require the wealthy to pay their fair share.” Consider: before Bush’s tax cuts in 2000 the top 1% paid 38% of all income taxes and the bottom 95% paid 44%. In 2007 the top 1% of taxpayers paid over 40 percent of the taxes while the bottom 95% paid just over 39. So those “tax cuts for the rich” cost the rich an additional 2% while the bottom 95% saved 5%. Since the top 1% is paying more than the bottom 95%, honestly now, who’s not paying their fair share?
“Too many companies that can afford to provide insurance don’t; . . . we believe that the employer responsibility provision should be extended to include all employers so that all workers can have health care security.” Unless you are the president or comptroller of a business you can not possibly know what another company can or can not afford. While in Mr. Mass’ very next paragraph he stated: “we can’t compete with companies around the globe that don’t have to shoulder health costs . . .” I thought he just said that they all must insure, but if they do they can’t compete? Which is it?
He concludes: “if we fail to act, we’ll continue to see people get sick and die due to lack of coverage.” Medicare already has limits in its coverage. If we take ½ trillion dollars away from it, expand its coverage and add millions of others to a new health care program, then additional limits and reduced treatments must be implemented in order to control costs. How will that prevent sickness and save more lives? Simply stated; it won’t.
It is plain to see that we must educate ourselves because we are not being told the truth . . . . . This nightmare is over the 4% of Americans (according to Investor’s Business Daily July 17th of this year) who really can’t afford health insurance. If enacted this proposal will bankrupt our country even more quickly, and we’d be permanently saddled with a much less effective system than the one we have today. Remember, America, we can’t legislate competence, but we certainly can pass incompetent legislation, and that is what we’re facing today.
I have a relative whose roommate tripped in the subway in Paris last week resulting in profuse bleeding from her face and head. Following 8 hours in the emergency room of being told others needed attention more than she, and having stopped her own bleeding, she cleaned herself up, treated her own wounds and left the hospital without ever having been seen. So much for government-run health care. Is that the system you want? Not me. But there’re your dollars and “sense”.
Now that Senator Nelson has sided with the (non) sense agenda and sold out Nebraska and America, we need that much more effort, but fellow Americans, this idiocy must be stopped. It’s now up to you and me!
Ladies and Gentlemen.....I SAY TO YOU Again, This is about the Constitution.... nothing else. All the other issues are symptoms of the problem. The problem, and I reiterate, is the USURPATION of the Constitution.
I continue to say it is not about political parties or candidates....Nelson's election is three years away. Who's going to remember his action then....if, WE THE PEOPLE, don't truly understand what he has done to this country. It is not about "right to life", cost, special deals, etc, although they are extremely important.
The people must understand that this is irrefutable evidence that we HAVE LOST OUR GOVERNMENT and well on our way to LOSE OUR COUNTRY. I SAY AGAIN, no elected official speaks of the Constitution when discussing this matter.....what next.....guns, religion, the right to protest.
WAKE UP AMERICA.........it's "WE THE PEOPLE"
Here's what the Washington Post said:
"WASHINGTON -- A $100 million item for construction of a university hospital was inserted in the Senate health care bill at the request of Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., who faces a difficult re-election campaign, his office said Sunday night.
The legislation leaves it up to the Health and Human Services Department to decide where the money should be spent, although spokesman Bryan DeAngelis said Dodd hopes to claim it for the University of Connecticut."
This from a guy who has helped just about every liquor establishment in Omaha get its license-at least prior to the 'conflict of interest' issue that prevented him from voting and representing his constituents on license requests coming before the council. Of course, he then had his partner establish a separate company with out his name (Jerram's) on it so he could vote until that was revealed for what it was, a veiled attempt to skirt the conflict of interest provisions.
We'll have more on Jerram's liquor foibles soon so stay tuned.
Who does he think he is fooling? He voted for cloture with the carve-out. AND he voted against every pro-life organization in his state and the country and against 67% of his own state's population.
It was a sell-0ut and and a career decision. Just ask the 1800 or so folks that gathered yesterday at the Omaha Civic Auditorium Music Hall. How is it possible to turn out that many people in less than a day if Nebraskan's weren't totally opposed to it? Oh, yes, there were about 30 leftist liberals (including governor want-t0-be former recalled Omaha mayor Mike Boyle) who got whipped out by the Democrats to show up to support Nelson's support of the Ben Nelson/Harry Reid/Obama Health Care Bill. You figure the percentages and the passion.
As we said, Nebraska Betrayer Ben Nelson can try to shift the blame and cover it up, but on that hot tin roof it's impossible.
P.S. Washington Post Reporter Chris Cillizza in today's assessement of winner and losers had this to say in calling Nelson a 'winner': "Ben Nelson: The Nebraska senator played the legislative process like a virtuoso, not only getting stricter language about abortion funding included in the final bill but also scoring another huge plum -- the promise of full federal funding for the expansion of Medicaid in the Cornhusker State. Of Nelson's bargaining, one Senate Democratic operative said: "A one-man study on how the Senate works -- they should teach this in civics class."
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Ben suggested that the Ben Nelson/Harry Reid/Obama Health Care Bill would rank with Social Security and Medicare as the outstanding program of this century. Apparently, while he was being bribed and brainwashed he forgot to look at the financials of these soon to be bankrupt programs as he chose to nationalize 17% of our economy and place huge tax burdens on future generations who will also shortly find themselves under a single payer government system that will make life and death decisions for them as it rations medical treatment.
The only good thing we can say in awarding this 'honor' to Ben is that it also carries an omen of his demise from Nebraska politics come January 2013. Not soon enough but certain.
No congratulations due Ben for his despicable behaviour.
There will be plenty of time in the New Year to discuss health care, global warming, the development of nuclear weapons by our enemies, and so many other topics concerning the fight for freedom in 21st Century America. With so many people disillusioned with the “hope and change” proffered recently as a substitute for true faith, this might be the best of times to examine the only true hope of humanity.
The greatest man who ever lived, the God-man, Jesus Christ, was born in the humblest of settings to become the Savior of mankind. At the time of his birth, even King Herod’s men did not think to look in a stable for a king. Kings are born in palaces, among opulence and luxury. Jesus did not fit the template. For two thousand years the human race has continued to look for something more, something flashier, something more glorious, something greater. For those of us who passionately believe in the story of the Nativity, it is a clear reminder of why our faith is a life to be lived in the Spirit the Living God. What could be greater than that?
That is the difference between Christianity and every other religion in the world. Scripture tells us what Christ had to say about himself. He said, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me.” If that is not true, then He was either a liar or a lunatic, and no one believes that. In fact, virtually every other faith speaks of Jesus Christ as a wise prophet, a great teacher, or a good man, and other religions are willing to acknowledge that following Jesus is one of the ways to heaven. But Christ says He is the only way to heaven. No wonder He was crucified.
Christianity also is unique in that it proclaims that its central figure is still alive. Hindus think their leaders have been reincarnated. Buddha and his followers are thought to be part of some vast cosmos of energy. Mohammed, fiercely and violently defended as he may be, is still dead. Even the bodies of Abraham and Moses have long ago turned to dust. Jesus Christ alone is believed by his followers to be physically alive — in spite of having faced the worst death imaginable.
Far too many in our society reject the simple gospel presented by Christ and his disciples in favor of alternative religions that teach vague notions of piety through good works. The social gospel of using government to create an earthly utopia will disappoint us every time. False prophets and self-serving politicians have always been at the forefront of man’s disenchantment. They offer hope but dispense hopelessness. They promise change but deliver bondage — to an ideology, an idol or a doctrine. There is only one infallible answer. Discontented seekers of new age solutions to age-old problems need only look to the truth of the Christmas story.
This week, as we celebrate the miracle birth of a baby who would grow up to be both man and God, who would lay down His life as a sacrifice for the sins of those who would believe, we also should remember that He is still with us. Like Christmas itself, the reality of Christ persists and grows stronger. He was born, lived, died, and rose again. He ascended into heaven to sit at the right hand of His Father, to make intercession for us, and He sent His Holy Spirit to live within those who would receive Him. What a story. To millions of us, it is still the only one that makes sense, and He is our only source of true hope.
© 2009 by Doug Patton
Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a political speechwriter and public policy advisor. His work has been published in newspapers across the country, such as the Washington Times and the Tampa Tribune, on web sites such as Human Events Online and GOPUSA.com, where he is a senior writer and state editor, and featured on the Mike Gallager and Sean Hannity radio shows. Readers can e-mail him at email@example.com.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Friday, December 18, 2009
"Assuming all goes according to plan and the Senate passes whatever version of this thing gets to the floor on December 23, sometime early in January, Democrats from the Senate will meet with Democrats from the House to resolve any (and there are many) differences between the two versions.
This is where the mischief really happens.
In the movie biz there is a phrase for an actor flubbing a line in his 27th take, or dropping a glass in an otherwise perfect performance: "We'll fix it in post." Which means "We'll repair any errors in post-production.
The Congressional version of "We'll fix it in post" is: "We'll fix it in Conference."
The House-Senate conferees will meet in secret. They will craft a bill which looks nothing like what either chamber passed and they will each bring that version (known as a "Conference Report") back to their respective floors for a final vote.
This is a little complicated, but it is worth the typing. Conference Reports are privileged, meaning they can be brought up at any time and the motion to do so is not debatable. However, the Conference Report itself - in the Senate - is subject to filibuster and so needs 60 votes to pass.
Unless … It is a Conference Report presented as a "budget reconciliation bill" in which case 51 votes suffice. What is a "budget reconciliation bill?" That phrase is understood by only two people … and they don't agree.
Seriously, though. Because of the enormous budget implications of this legislation, it is quite likely that Harry Reid (D-Nev) will bring up the Conference Report under reconciliation. Republicans will scream bloody murder. Democrats will sheepishly withdraw to the cloak room.
The bill will pass the House and the Senate and, healthy or not, it will go to the President for his signature."
Here's what their latest message said:
"Dear MoveOn member,
Your senator, Ben Nelson, is trying to make the Senate health care bill even worse!
In exchange for his vote, he's demanding far-reaching new restrictions on insurance coverage for reproductive choice, and he wants to weaken the provisions in the bill to expand Medicaid for low income folks.1
Can you stop by Sen. Nelson's office in Omaha on Monday to tell him to stop it? This bill needs to get better, not worse.
Click here to let us know you can make it:"
Lots of questions and no solid answers yet today, but if Ben votes no on cloture and brings down Harry Reid's house of cards could it finally be time for him to make a party switch? Would Republicans welcome him with his anti-health care vote and his opposition to cap and trade? Why wouldn't they?
"Dear MoveOn member,
The latest Senate health care bill has no public option. No expansion of Medicare. And it does too little to guarantee that uninsured Americans will actually be able to afford the coverage they'll be required to purchase.1
Former insurance executive Wendell Potter put it best: the bill is "a big bailout to the [health insurance] industry."2
But it's not too late to fix the bill. And as Joe Lieberman has shown, just one senator willing to stand in the way can force legislation to be changed dramatically.
Senator Bernie Sanders, a strong proponent of the public option, has already made clear that he's opposed to the legislation in its current form—and he could decide to block it until it's fixed.3But there's enormous pressure from all sides to pass a bill quickly, no matter how weak it is. Let's show Bernie and other progressives that we're counting on them to block this version of the bill—and we'll get their backs if they do.
Can you sign our petition opposing the current Senate health care bill? Clicking here will add your name:"
"We are working hard to persuade Senator Nelson that this [health care reform legislation] is in the best interest of Nebraska and his constituents and the country. And we will continue to do that, as we will with other members of the Senate. And the main thing I would say to him and all members of the Senate is that after a long, long, long and thorough debate, let us have a vote. Whether you support the bill or don't support the bill, let us have a vote. Let the American people have a vote.
"What we are arguing about today is not whether a majority support the bill in the Senate. A majority does. What we are arguing about is whether they will have a chance to express themselves and vote -- or whether a minority will thwart the majority and keep that vote from happening.
"And so my hope is that Senator Nelson, who has always said under Republican administrations that we shouldn't use procedural maneuvers to try and keep bills from coming to the floor, that he will not allow that to happen here."
If he hasn't been looking in front of his offices with the almost daily rallies, he should be looking at the numbers AND THERE ARE NUMBERS. You can find the results of a November 8-10 survey by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce at: https://www.uschamber.com/assets/uscc/healthcare_toplines.pdf
Here is a Summary for Nebraska:
- Which priority do you think the country should focus on first (ROTATE: improving the quality of health care, lowering the costs of health care, or covering more of the uninsured)? Quality, 22%; Costs, 52%; Uninsured, 16%; Don't Know 16%
- Which priority do you think the country should focus on first (ROTATE: improving the quality of health care, lowering the costs of health care, or covering more of the uninsured)? Strongly Support, 15%; Somewhat Support, 12%; Somewhat Oppose, 11%; Strongly oppose, 56%; Don't Know, 7%
- Thinking about the overall health care reform plan being discussed in Congress, would you say you generally support or oppose that reform plan? Support, 29%, Oppose, 63%; Don't know, 9%.
- Do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about health care reform being discussed in Congress? (RANDOMIZE) IF AGREE OR DISAGREE, ASK: Would that be strongly (agree/disagree), or just somewhat (agree/disagree)?
A government-run public option will raise my health care costs. Strongly Agree, 47%, Somewhat agree, 17%; Somewhat disagree, 14%; Strongly Disagree, 16%; Don't Know, 7%
- The reforms being discussed will raise my health care costs. Strongly agree, 46%; Somewhat agree, 19%; Somewhat disagree, 15%; Strongly Disagree, 13%; Don't Know, 6%
- The reforms being discussed will increase the deficit. Strongly Agree, 62%; Somewhat Agree, 18%; Somewhat Disagree, 8%; Strongly Disagree, 8%; Don't Know, 4%
- The reforms being discussed will cause my taxes to go up. Strongly Agree, 62%; Somewhat agree, 18%; Somewhat disagree, 9%; Strongly Disagree, 7%; Don't Know, 4%
- The reforms being discussed will expand government control over health care. Strongly Agree, 55%; Somewhat Agree, 22%; Somewhat Disagree, 9%; Strongly Disagree, 10%; Don't Know, 5%
- Any new taxes and fees charged to health care companies will get passed on and will mean higher health care costs for me. Strongly agree, 51%; Somewhat agree, 20%; Somewhat disagree, 11%; Strongly disagree, 11%; Don't know, 6%
- The 400 billion dollars in cuts being proposed for Medicare will harm health care for seniors. Strongly agree, 47%; Somewhat agree, 18%; somewhat disagree, 14%; Strongly disagree, 13%; Don't know, 8%.
- A government-run public option will cause employers to drop health insurance coverage and move their employees into the government-run plan. Strongly Agree, 41%; Somewhat agree, 20%; Somewhat disagree, 14%; Strongly Disagree, 15%; Don't Know, 11%.
Question Wording and State Results for Statewide Surveys on Health Care Reform
Results are based on 600 respondents in NE (Margin of Error ± 4.00 percent).
Percentages may not equal 100 percent due to rounding.
But, new data in the NBC/WSJ poll suggests that simply passing a bill -- whatever is in it -- won't solve Democrats' political problems on health care.
- Just 32 percent of of the sample said that President Obama's plan is a good idea while 47 percent said is a bad idea. Public opinion on that question had eroded even since October when 38 percent thought passing some sort of health care bill was a good idea while 42 percent said it was a bad one.
- More people now believe that it would be better to not pass the plan and maintain the status quo (44 percent) than think passing the plan and changing the system is the right course (41 percent). In October, those numbers were reversed with 45 percent agreeing with the idea that passing the Obama plan was the right thing to do while 39 percent preferred to keep the status quo in place.
What that data tells us is that the White House is pushing to passage a piece of legislation that large swaths of the American people neither want nor think will work.
The White House -- well aware of what the polls say -- is basing the necessity of passing the bill (and doing it as quickly as possible) on a belief that the alternative of giving up or starting over is politically untenable because so much political capital has already been poured into the effort. (It's sort of like waiting in a REALLY long line at Disneyworld -- sure you've been in line for hours on end but getting out of line is way worse than waiting another hour.)
They also believe -- as senior adviser David Axelrod's unsolicited call to "Morning Joe" this morning indicates -- that the legislation, once implemented, will succeed and in doing so will change the American public's perception of it. "We're on the verge of doing something that would make an enormously positive difference for people," Axelrod said in a sentiment he has undoubtedly repeated to any number of wavering Democratic lawmakers in recent days.
Accepting the premise that the legislation will ultimately make changes for the better in the way in which health care is delivered in the country, it's not clear that those changes will be felt in a real way before next November's midterm elections.
It's equally plausible to think that the confusion created by the changes instituted in the bill could turn perception -- at least in the short term -- against the legislation and the party who conceived of it.
Steve Bouchard, a Democratic consultant, called health care a "huge problem" for Democrats in 2010. "It will be much easier to vilify this bill in the short run than it will be to show its effectiveness in the short run," he said. "A health care solution by nature is a long-term fix -- not easily boiled down to sound-bites, bumper stickers and rally signs."
If Bouchard's scenario came to pass, Democrats would be in an electoral trap: not only would they get blamed for the bill by a significant segment of Republican and independent voters, they would also run the risk of having further de-energized their liberal base heading into the midterm elections.
Again, the NBC/WSJ survey paints a dire picture. Fifty six percent of Republicans call themselves highly interested in the 2010 election while 46 percent of Democrats say the same. Among that highly interested group, Republicans hold a 47 percent to 39 percent edge on the generic ballot question. That sort of base energy disparity should worry any Democrat with even a passing interest in the 2010 election.
The numbers make clear that simply passing the bill isn't the panacea to Democrats' political problems on health care. In fact, there's a very real possibility it could make things worse."
Thursday, December 17, 2009
The latest battleground poll shows that among lots of other folks Pelosi and Nancy are about as welcome as ants at a picnic. Here are the numbers, courtesy of Real Clear Politics:
- Obama +17 (57/40)
- Biden +8 (48/40)
- Gingrich +7 (43/36)
- Palin -1 (45/46)
- Reid -18 (19/37)
- Pelosi -23 (30/53)
In other words Pelosi has a favorable rating of 30%, an unfavorable of 53% and a net positive/negative rating of -23%! Reid isn't much better. You can bet both will have the most unattractive photos of themselves in lots of Republican ads next year.
Over the past month, my colleagues and I have debated a number of our country's most pressing issues in the Senate.
Issues like health care reform, the war in Afghanistan and our nation's economic recovery are at the forefront of our discussions.
I have taken an active role in finding solutions to these challenges in Washington, but I know that Congress never has all the answers. And before the Senate goes into recess for the holiday season, I want to know what you think about these issues.
That's why I'm asking for your opinion. We've put together a short American Issues Survey for you to fill out and I ask that you take a moment to do so today.
As a Senator, I rely on feedback from my constituents in Arizona and my supporters across the country. I need your feedback to continue serving as a voice for conservative values. Please share your opinions through the American Issues Survey by following this link.
I sincerely value your opinion and want to hear from you. I know we are entering a busy time for many - as you prepare to spend the holidays with your family- and that's why we've shortened the survey to only ten questions. Please take the survey and submit your responses today."
What a guy, he just wants our opinion so he can do a better job (too bad he didn't listen to us last year). But, as the late night commercials say, "there's more", and from John it is always an ask for your money as he notes in the final paragraph of his missive:
"It's hard to believe that we are just around the corner from another election year. And as we prepare our campaign for 2010, I am reaching out to you for your support. After filling out our survey, you will have the opportunity to make a contribution to my campaign. I ask that you give as generously as you can, so I can continue my service to the people of Arizona and conservatives nationwide."
Frankly, John has a conservative running against him. Maybe, we'll save our time and money by not filling out his questionnaire and keep our money for a conservative.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Dear MoveOn member,
It's outrageous: Joe Lieberman is single-handedly blocking our best chance at strong health care reform in years!
In less than 24 hours MoveOn members have donated an astounding $650,000 to send Lieberman home for good. That's awesome—thank you! Now we're aiming to raise $1 million together.
If we can hit that goal, we'll have the resources to make sure every voter in Connecticut knows that Senator Lieberman has been standing in the way of reform and to push Senate Democrats to take away his chairmanship.
That'll take at least 19 donations from Omaha—can you chip in $5?"
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
My son was 14 when he and I started playing golf together. He is the same age as Tiger Woods, and since he has watched Tiger dominate the game all his adult life, you might imagine him to be a fan. If so, you would be wrong.
Like most recreational duffers, I was always in awe of Tiger’s prowess on the golf course. Not so my son. He was so put off by Woods’ ego, foul language and arrogant attitude on the course that he could not enjoy the man’s amazing ability to do almost magical things with a golf ball.
When the sewer that is Tiger’s private life began spilling into the public domain recently, my son’s appraisal of him turned out to be the correct one. “He’s a narcissist, Dad,” he told me. “He had it all and it wasn’t enough. There’s nothing — certainly not a Christian faith — in his life to temper him, and this is where his ego has taken him.”
My son’s comments started me thinking about former pro golfer turned TV golf commentator Johnny Miller’s 2004 book, “I Call the Shots,” wherein he flatly stated that he did not believe Tiger Woods would ever catch Jack Nicklaus in total major tournament victories.
Over the course of a quarter century, Jack Nicklaus won eighteen major tournaments. Between 1961 and 1986, the Golden Bear, as Nicklaus came to be known among fans and sportswriters alike, won the British Open three times, the U.S. Open four times and the Masters and PGA tournaments five times each. It was a remarkable record, and only Tiger Woods has ever threatened to top it.
But Jack also was known as a good and decent champion. Miller, who played with Nicklaus, wrote that in stark contrast to Tiger’s profanity-laced temper tantrums on the course, Jack’s style was more of a self-effacing groan. “The worst I ever heard from him,” Miller wrote, “was ‘Oh, Jack,’ when he hit a bad shot.”
With Tiger nipping at Jack’s heels, it would be easy to look back and say that Miller was delusional five years ago to think that Woods would not pass Nicklaus in major tournaments. But I have come to believe that Miller might be right in his assessment of the Woods versus Nicklaus career achievements, although for different reasons than he could have envisioned when he wrote his book.
At age 34, Tiger has fourteen majors under his belt. When Jack was Tiger’s age, he, too, had fourteen. It took another thirteen years to rack up four more. And Jack had something Tiger does not have: a stable family life and a strong faith to keep him grounded when adoration became a demon sitting on his shoulder telling him he’s so special that life’s rules don’t apply to him. Golf is a physical and mental game, and without the peace that comes with faith and family, Tiger’s best days on the golf course could well be behind him.
Jack Nicklaus, always the gentleman, has said that Tiger’s troubles are “none of my business.” He has also predicted that the public will forgive and forget Tiger’s problems. I’m not so sure. Woods has announced that he is taking an “indefinite break” from golf, and his sponsors are running from him like rats from the lower decks of the Titanic. After all, this is not just infidelity. This is hookers and strippers and porn stars. This is serial adultery and habitual orgies on a scale that would make Bill Clinton blush. One report has it that Tiger was with one of these bimbos when his father died in hospice care!
I believe in forgiveness and redemption, but based on Tiger Woods’ behavior these last few years, my son’s assessment is exactly right. After more than a decade of carefully crafting a false public image, the ugly truth of this man’s real life has now etched his name in the record books with an asterisk behind it, alongside other great athletes who thought just a little too much of themselves. Pete Rose will always be a great baseball player who gambled on baseball. Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire will be remembered for using performance-enhancing drugs. Magic Johnson is the basketball player who got AIDS. And no matter what Woods does on the links in the future, he will be forever remembered as a Paper Tiger, never a Golden Bear.
© 2009 by Doug Patton
Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a political speechwriter and public policy advisor. His work has been published in newspapers across the country, such as the Washington Times and the Tampa Tribune, on web sites such as Human Events Online and GOPUSA.com, where he is a senior writer and state editor, and featured on the Mike Gallager and Sean Hannity radio shows. Readers can e-mail him at firstname.lastname@example.org.