Petty and Transparent

Allahpundit:

If you could somehow promise him right now that he’ll get a second term no matter what happens with jobs, he’d tear the speech up and watch the Packers/Saints game himself. Pathetic.

Hilarious!

This political stunt by Obama over who gets the Wednesday night airwaves is just so pathetic one is almost (but not quite) embarrassed for Obama.  Does he not have handlers that can avoid such a blunder as this?  Did he think everyone would drop dead and bow when he decided that being a demagogue and trumping a presidential debate would be a good idea?

Yes, the debate is one of many in an election over a year away.

But it's Rick Perry's debut on the debate stage!

And the next night is the NFL season opener!

And who really cares what Obama is going to say anyway?  I've not seen his speech but I can bet it's loaded with self-important blather and much repeated bromides that we've heard over and over and over.  It won't change anything (at least in a positive way).    My own over/under on how many times he says "I"?  45.

Truthfully, if this guy wants to help the nation, he could just take a seat.  Go to the house.  Back to Chicago.  Leave us alone.  Thanks, but no thanks.  See ya.

He should look up "petty" and "transparent" in the dictionary.

Boehner's New Plan

It looks like it's going to be a long weekend with the debt ceiling debate.  And truthfully, it's enough to make your head spin.

As of today, Boehner has a new plan and apparently the change is that this one includes a balanced budget amendment.  This BBA must be sent to the states before the ceiling is raised a second time.  Spending cuts must be larger than the spending increase, but it doesn't specify when those spending cuts occur, as far as I can tell.

Andrew Stiles at NRO reports that this new Boehner version will likely pass:

The exact language of the balanced-budget amendment will be up to Congress to determine. Members will vote on the updated legislation sometime today and many expect it to pass.

Rush Limbaugh pointed out today that the Boehner bill and the Reid bill are virtually the same except for the time line and the BBA.

Of course, Harry Reid and Obama say the Boehner bill is DOA so it's all for naught.

Steve Womack (R-Ark.) says the new Boehner bill is worse:

Womack tells National Review Online that he believes the initial bill, without the BBA requirement, was a “better play” because it had a much better chance of getting through the Senate, or at least becoming the framework for a final deal. He says the new bill “weakens our position” and “gives much more power to the Senate” by essentially allowing them lead the way on a final compromise.

Conn Carroll at The Washington Examiner says the Boehner bill won't be DOA in the Senate:

In the few minutes it takes to read this post, at least five Democrats will have again told reporters that the Boehner bill is "dead on arrival" in the Senate. But if the Boehner bill is such a non-threat to the White House, then why are House Democrats so scared to let any of their moderates vote for it?

Remember, five Democrats crosssed party lines to vote for the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act. That bill, requiring a constituional amendment with a super-majority to raise taxes, was truly DOA in the Senate. But this time around, no House Democrats will vote for the Boehner plan. Why?

Carroll points out that the Senate won't take the Boehner bill as is, but it will be the starting point for what we eventually end up with.

Here is Kathryn Lopez's take on the way it will go:

So what does the new path look like? This tweaked Budget Control Act will pass the House. The Senate will strip out the BBA language. It will pass the Senate. When it goes back to the House, Boehner loses some of his caucus again, but Pelosi will have to get some of her members on board. If this is such a crisis moment, Democrats are the party in power. Boehner negotiated with his caucus and got an imperfect bill that the Democratic Senate could work with — with a statement of principles in including the BBA. Then the Democrats, who do run Washington, after all, will have to step up to the plate.

She's probably right. 


Meanwhile, Stacy McCain is keeping an eye on the markets.  It seems the key there is to keep Obama off the television:

Before President Obama’s speech, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was down 90 points. Now — as of 10:45 a.m. ET — it’s down 110 points.  Why? Because he used his speech for a partisan hit on the GOP as offering a bill that “does not solve the problem” and can’t pass Harry Reid’s Democrat-controlled Senate.

He really is a downer.  Even Peggy Noonan sees that.  Now.

He is a loser.

She's a little late to the realization, but that's okay.

As for Boehener's bill, it goes to the Rules committee this afternoon and a vote could come later.  Stay tuned for updates here.   


(Memeorandum has full coverage as well, as always.)

Class Warfare, Slavery References, Damn the Corporate Jets: It's Another Obama Speech! #Drink!!!

Obama's speech tonight was less "table thumping" than I expected.  It was full of class warfare baiting and demagoguery, but less hostile than I've seen him before.  Corporate jets are still the bane of evil.

A few things that struck me (in order of appearance):

First:

For the last decade, we have spent more money than we take in. In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus. But instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was spent on trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program were simply added to our nation’s credit card.

How can he, with a straight face, criticize our level of spending after ramming through the bill, the stimulus, omnibus, and Obamacare?  I mean, really.

And on that issue of "two wars" that GWB just "added to our nation's credit card," what would Obama have had him do?  What would Obama have done if 9/11 happened on HIS watch?  I shudder to think.

Next:

Now, every family knows that a little credit card debt is manageable. But if we stay on the current path, our growing debt could cost us jobs and do serious damage to the economy. More of our tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on our loans. Businesses will be less likely to open up shop and hire workers in a country that can’t balance its books.

Woah.  Woah.  Businesses won't open up shop because we can't balance our books?  All along I've thought it was because of the leaden regulations coming out of Washington.  Didn't I just read something where Obamacare is stifling new hiring?  

I thought this was patronizing:

I won’t bore you with the details of every plan or proposal, but basically, the debate has centered around two different approaches.

As if we're too dull and stupid to understand.  In truth, I don't think he understands.  Now, watch the slight of hand carefully here...look at how he frames his ideas (I can't really call it a plan):

The first approach says, let’s live within our means by making serious, historic cuts in government spending. Let’s cut domestic spending to the lowest level it’s been since Dwight Eisenhower was President. Let’s cut defense spending at the Pentagon by hundreds of billions of dollars. Let’s cut out the waste and fraud in health care programs like Medicare – and at the same time, let’s make modest adjustments so that Medicare is still there for future generations. Finally, let’s ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to give up some of their tax breaks and special deductions.

The old "shared sacrifice" argument.  Corporate jets.  Cut the defense budget.  Cut those who provide jobs.  "Shared sacrifice" only includes who he wants it to include.  It's not really "shared."

This is the part that gets me:

The only reason this balanced approach isn’t on its way to becoming law right now is because a significant number of Republicans in Congress are insisting on a cuts-only approach – an approach that doesn’t ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all. And because nothing is asked of those at the top of the income scales, such an approach would close the deficit only with more severe cuts to programs we all care about – cuts that place a greater burden on working families.

More corporate America, class warfare baiting.  Evil corporate jets.  Somebody get this guy an iPod with Marco Rubio's speech on there where he suggests we need more taxPAYERS instead of jacking up the burden on those who already pay the majority of the taxes in this country.

Oh, and in case you were wondering, $250,000 is the new millionare and billionaire:

Keep in mind that under a balanced approach, the 98% of Americans who make under $250,000 would see no tax increases at all.

And the old meme that paying taxes is "patriotic" was invoked again.  If that's the case then 47% of Americans aren't patriotic.

And why was he invoking Reagan and comparing himself to Reagan in this speech.  Reagan would have cleaned this slop up months ago.

Now, check this segment:

Understand – raising the debt ceiling does not allow Congress to spend more money. It simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up. In the past, raising the debt ceiling was routine. Since the 1950s, Congress has always passed it, and every President has signed it. President Reagan did it 18 times. George W. Bush did it 7 times. And we have to do it by next Tuesday, August 2nd, or else we won’t be able to pay all of our bills.

He says "Congress" has racked up these bills as if he is totally blameless.  Like, he didn't sign any of them, they just slipped on through.  He didn't push anything through or orchestrate like the Wizard behind the curtain.  But, we're too stupid to catch that.  

And all that business about former presidents raising the debt ceiling?  Is he aware that he's racked up more debt during his administration than all previous administrations put together?  That sort of matters in this argument, I think.

Remember in the beginning of his speech when he said "neither party is blameless"?  But then he says

Unfortunately, for the past several weeks, Republican House members have essentially said that the only way they’ll vote to prevent America’s first-ever default is if the rest of us agree to their deep, spending cuts-only approach.

It's all the Republicans fault!  And corporate jets!  Drink!

If we don't do it HIS way...

For the first time in history, our country’s Triple A credit rating would be downgraded, leaving investors around the world to wonder whether the United States is still a good bet. Interest rates would skyrocket on credit cards, mortgages, and car loans, which amounts to a huge tax hike on the American people. We would risk sparking a deep economic crisis – one caused almost entirely by Washington.

Just change that last word from "Washington" to "Republicans" and that's what he really meant.  Big bad Republicans who won't play by his rules.  

And don't you love the purely political posturing in this one:

Defaulting on our obligations is a reckless and irresponsible outcome to this debate. And Republican leaders say that they agree we must avoid default. But the new approach that Speaker Boehner unveiled today, which would temporarily extend the debt ceiling in exchange for spending cuts, would force us to once again face the threat of default just six months from now. In other words, it doesn’t solve the problem.

In other words, "it doesn't get me past re-election!" 

From there Obama rants a bit more about wealthy Americans, corporations, and corporate jets again, and then insists on "compromise."  The problem here is that to him, compromise means his way or the highway.  There is no compromise with a demagogue.

He's starting to wrap it up here and so he pulls out the Founding Father's reference (we've already done the Reagan reference, remember) and compares the whole mess to slavery.  Really?!  

America, after all, has always been a grand experiment in compromise. As a democracy made up of every race and religion, where every belief and point of view is welcomed, we have put to the test time and again the proposition at the heart of our founding: that out of many, we are one. We have engaged in fierce and passionate debates about the issues of the day, but from slavery to war, from civil liberties to questions of economic justice, we have tried to live by the words that Jefferson once wrote: “Every man cannot have his way in all things…Without this mutual disposition, we are disjointed individuals, but not a society.”

This is a debate about civil liberties and slavery?  All this time I thought we were talking about excessive Washington spending.  Or is it the same thing?

Obama closes by saying how great America is (was?) and how history is scattered with ideologues (like him) but that we remember those (like Boehner?) who put country first and stand up for the greater good.

On that part, we agree.

Palate cleanser:  Boehner's response.

Added:  Best quote from The Other McCain:

You know who’s smiling now? Jimmy Carter.

Because Jimmy’s well on his way to becoming the second-worst president in American history.

(Linked at The Other McCain - Thanks!  And at Fishersville Mike - Thank you!  And at Pirates Cove!  Thanks!)

Slaying the Budget Beast

Andy McCarthy must have missed his coffee this morning.  He has a glorious rant posted over at The Corner blasting the "half-pittance" the Republicans settled for in the budget deal last night.  He makes some valid points but I do think there are a couple of good things about the budget deal.  I like that Boehner is forcing a Senate vote on the repeal of Obamacare; nobody expects it to pass, of course, but I like that it puts everyone on record.  Now, is that enough of a concession to settle for this paltry amount in cuts?  Probably not, which is what has McCarthy riled up:

With due respect, I think those who are praising the budget deal are deluding themselves. Under circumstances where we are trillions of dollars in debt, the GOP just caved on its promise to cut the relative pittance of $61 billion in spending because it’s just not worth fighting for more than the half-pittance of $40 billion Democrats claimed was their drop-dead number. “Drop dead” meant daring Republicans to shut the government down (which, as we know, doesn’t actually shut the government down). The Republicans blinked. 

Boehner said last night that this was "as good a deal we could get."  Really?  Why?  McCarthy makes a valid point when he says

A mere four months ago, the big controversy in conservative and Republican circles was whether the GOP had reneged on their vaunted pledge to cut $100B in spending in the current fiscal year because they had seemingly come down to $61B. As I noted at the time, there was no question that, if you looked at the fine print of the pledge, the commitment was $61B — but that if you looked at reality, both $61B and $100B were laughably unserious. 

It's difficult to argue with him when he says that $40 billion is pittance when you're looking at trillions.  
One person in the comments to McCarthy's post said:

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Until we take the Senate and/or the White House we are going to have to do this incrementally. One salami slice at a time...

That's a lot of salami.  At this rate it would take us lifetimes to get the deficit under control. 

 On the other hand, there are plenty of people out there praising the deal and calling this deal a big win.  Phillip Klein calls it a deal "Republicans should be happy about":

But [Boehner]  did use what leverage he had to get a lot more out of Democrats than they wanted to give up. Democrats didn't want any spending cuts, and President Obama's original budget proposed spending that was $78.5 billion higher than what was agreed upon tonight. (The House and Senate are passing a seven-day stopgap measure that will cut the first $2 billion and give lawmakers more time to craft a final draft of the bill.) The deal includes a provision that would deny federal funds to pay for abortions in Washington, DC and would allow for Senate votes on the Planned Parenthood funding ban and repeal of ObamaCare -- both of which will force vulnerable Democrats into tough votes. And keep in mind that the ban on Planned Parenthood funding would have expired at the end of the budget year -- Sept. 30 -- anyway.

Klein stresses the fact that with a liberal Senate and a liberal President, at this point, we need to take what we can while still "holding Republicans' feet to the fire."  No doubt.

I sympathize completely with Mr. McCarthy's frustration but I think at the same time this is a battle that, as Klein and others have stated, is just going to have to be done incrementally.  Win the White House, win the Senate, and then let's talk.

(Much more at Memeorandum)

Boehner Responds

Here is John Boehner's response to Harry Reid's line-in-the-sand warning not to try to repeal Obamacare:

Senators Reid, Durbin, Schumer, Murray and Stabenow:

Thank you for reminding us – and the American people – of the backroom deal that you struck behind closed doors with ‘Big Pharma,’ resulting in bigger profits for the drug companies, and higher prescription drug costs for 33 million seniors enrolled in Medicare Part D, at a cost to the taxpayers of $42.6 billion. 
The House is going to pass legislation to repeal that now.  You’re welcome.  

- Speaker-Designate John Boehner’s Press Office

The 112th Congress swearing in will be broadcast live on Facebook tomorrow:

Tomorrow, House Republicans will live stream the opening session of the 112th Congress - including the swearing-in ceremony and remarks by Speaker-designate John Boehner (R-OH) - on the Pledge to America Facebook Page. The House will convene and the stream will go live at 12:00 p.m. ET.

The reading of the Constitution will be Thursday at approximately 11:00 ET.

The Lefties are Getting out Their Garlic Necklaces

The liberals are simply twisting themselves like tops as they contemplate John Boehner's plan to open the 112th Congress with a reading of the Constitution.  Personally, I think it's a fine idea.  As teachers we are always reminded by our administrators to "set the tone" on the very first day.  The same principle is at work here.  The lefties are in apoplexy.  Let's survey a few of those:

Michael Chamberlain at OpEdNews says:

This reading of the Constitution, into the Congressional Record, is smoke and mirrors, nothing more.

Here's what Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, should do after the reading concludes. Make a request to clarify the reading of the Constitution, with the reading of the following documents: From the Federalist Papers, Federalist #33, by Alexander Hamilton, and Federalist #39, by James Madison. Those, will get their heads spinning with NATIONAL supremacy. Also, from the Founders' Constitution: James Madison's letter to Thomas Jefferson, dated June 27, 1823; James Madison's letter to Edmund Pendleton, dated October 28, 1787; and James Madison's, Notes on Nullification written between 1835 and 1836.

Chamberlain then goes on to explain that it's "anti-Constitutional" to repeal Obamacare and cites a Georgetown law professor as his source.

From the blog Say it Ain't So Already:

This sounds like a way to waste a whole bunch of time and to feed video of supposedly uber-patriotic Republicans to the media.

Obama himself suggests that Republicans are simply "playing to their base" and says:

“My expectation, my hope is that John Boehner and Mitch McConnell will realize that there will be plenty of time to campaign for 2012 in 2012,”

Spoken like a true campaigner.  Obama has never quit campaigning for 2012.

Norah O'Donnell says it's just a gimmick:

O'Donnell condescendingly introduced the segment by suggesting that the Constitution "has been getting a whole lot of lip service." After alerting viewers that the Republicans would open Congress by reading the document's text, she skeptically wondered, "Is this a gimmick?"

Ezra Klein says yes, indeed, it's a gimmick and besides, that old document is so confusing anyway...

Yes, it's a gimmick. [Laughs] I mean, you can say two things about it. One, is that it has no binding power on anything. And two, the issue of the Constitution is not that people don't read the text and think they're following. The issue of the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending on what they want to get done. So, I wouldn't expect to much coming out of this.

The Delaware Liberal is in the "it's a stunt" camp:

The new Republican House has already decided that it’s first stunt is to read the Constitution out loud. The Republicans want to convince us that they are the one, true party of the Constitution.

Over at Politicus USA this is all somehow Michelle Bachmann's doing:

Bachmann thinks the November 2^nd election was a mandate for Congress to return to the Founders’ idea of America and says, “Voters called for a renewed commitment to the Constitution,” and that, “These new rules show that Republicans are serious about respecting the Constitution.” Bachmann’s comprehension of the Constitution is tenuous at best, and her remarks this past summer that she wanted Minnesotan’s to be “armed and dangerous” in case the Federal government enforced federal laws were nothing short of treason and incitement to armed insurrection.

And ShowMeBlog offers this:

My God… The new and I guess old Republicans do not know what the Constitution of the United States contains!  Not only that it looks like the new Republicans coming into the House must be so stupid that they can read it. They have to have it read to them. I do not think the new Republican members of Congress should be sworn in as members of Congress.  How can they take the oath when they do not know what they are saying they will protect and defend?

 It's difficult for me to believe anyone could object to Boehner's reading of the Constitution.  It's never been done before and I think it's high time.  But to many liberals it's like garlic to a vampire and almost more than they can stand.  That's a shame.

Post-Election Thoughts (UPDATING ...)

What a great day to be an American!

I participated in Professor Jacobson's live blog event last night as a panelist so this blog was quiet for the most part. The good Professor reports that over 2500 participants took part in that event and I can attest that it was good fun. It was fun watching the returns with a bunch of other giddy people!  You never know what kind of things you'll learn etither; I learned that it's Paul Revere and not Sam Adams on the label of my beer bottle. 

Anyway, like the Professor, I'll have some thoughts through they day about last night, but for now, there's not enough caffeine in the house.  I do have a couple of loose thoughts I want to record, however:

1.  The biggest thrill of the night had to be Marco Rubio's victory.  It was not a surprise as in the final days Rubio was really pulling away in the polls.  But what a wonderful speech Rubio delivered and what a bright future he has!  Thank you Florida!  Thank you for voting for Marco Rubio.

2.  John Boehner's speech:  I've never seen such an emotional Boehner although reports are that he is quite an emotional guy and does that often.  I liked the response by Fuzzy Slippers in the Live Blog stream in Boehner's defense:  he's worked hard his entire life and has never been given a pass.  This really means something to him.  He knows its importance.

3.  I was following a lot of the House races in the southern region (where I live) and was caught by a couple that flipped back and forth all night and stayed very, very close.  Neither was decided when I finally went to bed last night.  One was the AL-02 race with Bobby Bright (D) and Martha Roby (R).  Roby finally prevailed in that race with 51.1% of the vote.  By most accounts, the Democrat, Bright, is as conservative a Democrat as you're likely to find.  He voted against the stimulus, against Cap and Trade, against the health care bill.  He had raised a lot more money than Roby, yet she prevailed.  The district is primarily Republican but has a tendency to vote Democrat at state and local levels, so it could be considered an upset that Roby won.

The other race I had my eye on that was very close was the TX-27 race where the incumbent Solomon Ortiz (D) was defeated by Republican Blake Farenthold by a final vote of 47.9% to 47.1%.  This race is a real testament to the notion that every vote counts.  Don't ever think your vote doesn't matter.  It does.

4.  The Nevada race was a disappointment.  I was so sorry that Reid won, but in looking for the bright side I suppose it will keep Republicans on their toes and will keep the Tea Party energized.  In his speech last night Reid said, "Americans have chosen the politics of hope over the politics of fear!"  That sea of red on the maps now sure looks like hope to me!

5.  The Florida Governor's election is has not yet been decided.  Hmmmm.

My brain needs caffeine.  I'll be back.  Here are some thoughts from others in the meantime:

Michelle Malkin has her post-election column.
Professor Jacobson has some random thoughts.
Stacy McCain & Smitty were live-blogging and have some insight.
Michael Barone has some post-election analysis.

And, as always, Memeorandum has exploding, ongoing threads on the aftermath of last night's wave.

Update:  Scratch No. 5 above, Dem. Alex Sink just gave a concession speech.

Update #2:  Good grief, I just noticed that CA re-elected Pete Stark 71.5% to 28.5% over Forest Baker.  Incredible.  Good Lord almighty I just don't have the words.  Good luck out there, folks.

Update #3:  The caffeine is helping.  But now I have a headache:  TX-18 went to Sheila Jackson Lee. Good grief.  Lunacy.  Like the Stark race in CA, it wasn't even close.  70.2% to 27.3%.  Oh well, at least she's never dull (I mean, boring.)

Update #4:  Arizona 07 and 08, both southern border counties, both went, or are leaning, Democrat.  You can draw all kinds of conclusions from that.  This handy-dandy map is great.  In the Senate, three races are still too close to call.

Update #5:  The Republican Leadership press conference:  Mitch McConnell and Boehner both declare themselves ready to "listen to the American people" and are ready to "turn the ship around" on the Obama agenda.  McConnell:  "Ignoring the voters and their wishes...produces predictable results." McConnell said, "Choosing the president over your constituents is not a good strategy."

To Democrats, McConnell suggests they listen to the voters and work with Republicans.

Haley Barbour is there also to comment on the governor's races which he says is a referendum on Obama's policies.  "The voters yesterday voted against excessive spending, piling on of deficits...huge tax increases coming in January and a takeover of the health care system." 

Boehner says Pelosi called him this morning and left him "a very nice voicemail" and he expects a smooth transition.

He also says "continuing all the current tax rates for all Americans is the right policy at this time."

One thing Boehner says is very true:  there are more people engaged in American government right now than ever.  People are finally paying attention.  McConnell points out that this is just a "first step" in changing direction for Washington.  Further change can happen in 2012; he also points out there will still have to be bi-partisan agreement to get things done.

Update #6:  Althouse had a fun live-blog last night.

Boehner Stars in Obama's Speech

I had to laugh at this line in The New Republic yesterday:

I think it's safe to say that President Obama has given up on bipartisanship, at least for the foreseeable future.

When was he ever practicing "bipartisanship"?  It's been Blame Bush and Blame Republicans ever since Obama walked onto the national stage.  Obamacare, the Stimulus and everything else this administration has rammed through Congress has been done strictly on party lines, for the most part, with Obama bellowing about Republicans being "the party of no" the entire time.

Yet he does still have his supporters.  And to them, I'm with Stacy McCain:

What’s really depressing is the thought that some percentage of the adult population greater than zero is so intensely stupid as to believe a speech composed chiefly of self-glorification, blame-shifting, naked partisanship, false dilemmas, class warfare and Keynesian claptrap.

Sad, but true.

And now it's not only Bush's fault, but Boehner's fault as Obama elevated Boehner's status by giving him eight shout outs in his speech.  Boehner must be pleased!

(AP Photo)

Republican Establishment Still Doesn't Get It

I was busy yesterday enjoying the sunshine, doing laundry, groceries, light housecleaning, and finally sitting outside on the deck reading China Marine. It was a lovely and relaxing day which we ended by walking next door after the sun set for drinks with my neighbors and another good friend on their patio. I didn't open the laptop all day (except for in the a.m. when I posted my weekly roundup.)

Stacy McCain however, was busy blogging all day and I want to point to you his piece warning the national Republican establishment to stay out of Republican primaries. We saw what happens when they interfere with NY-23 race, not to mention John Cornyn's early endorsement of Charlie Crist in Florida over Marco Rubio.

The national Republican establishment is so far out of touch with what needs to be done in the Republican party to resume leadership in this country that it is frightening. They've yet to get the message that we don't need any more RINOs in Washington. Now Rep. John Boehner is backing Rep. Parker Griffith in Alabama, someone who votes with Nancy Pelosi most of the time.

As Stacy said,

"Just as with Cornyn’s support for Crist against Marco Rubio, Boehner’s backing of Griffith puts the national GOP establishment in the position of campaigning against the exact kind of dynamic young leaders they need to be supporting."

Read his whole post here.

Update: And on a related note, don't miss this report that Evangelical donor Mark DeMoss has penned a letter to Michael Steele expressing disgust over the leaked PowerPoint presentation and vowing to donate his generous contributions from now on only to those candidates he supports rather than to the party establishment. Bravo!

The depictions of President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid were shameful, immature and uncivil, at best. While I realize your office made steps to distance you from this presentation I’m afraid the presentation is representative of a culture and mindset within the Republican National Committee; consequently, I will no longer contribute to any fundraising entity of our Party—but will contribute only to individual candidates I choose to support.

Read his entire letter here.

(H/T: Memeorandum)

Oh, To Be a Fly on the Wall

I so wish I could watch the health care summit at Blair House tomorrow, but alas, work beckons. I suppose I could TIVO it (yes, I'm that big of a nerd) but it would be anticlimactic somehow. It is sure to be great theater, however, and what I really wish is that I could just be a fly on the wall (hiding, not one snapped out of flight and squished) in that room.

Here is the list of those invited:

Senator Harry Reid, D-NV, Majority Leader
Senator Mitch McConnell, R-KY, Republican Leader
Senator Richard 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 Christopher Dodd, D-CT, Member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
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 Means 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

Senator John Barasso will also be there as the top Democrat and top Republican leaders were told they could invite four people each, and he was invited by Senator Mike Enzi.

The meeting is tomorrow but the scrapping has already begun. Robert Costa at The Corner reports:

Barrasso says that President Obama and Democrats are “arrogant” for proposing a “more expensive” health-care proposal just days before the summit. Barrasso adds that he remains “fascinated” at how not one “logical thought” has been expressed by Democrats in their summit-prep efforts, and still feels that Obama is unwilling to work with the GOP. “I don’t think [Obama] has been open to Republican ideas,” he says.

And now you've got John Boehner saying, "Hey! Let's invite Bart Stupak, too!"

John McCain plans on attending the meeting and he isn't bringing a positive outlook, either, but instead has a petition going against the Democrats plans:

Tomorrow, President Obama will host a health care reform summit to discuss his proposed overhaul of our health care system. I believe to achieve real reform; we must scrap it and start over. If you agree, I ask that you sign our "Scrap Health Care Reform and Start Over" petition. We'd like to gather 100,000 signatures overnight to send a message to the left, and your immediate action will help us reach this goal.

Oh and meanwhile, McCain encourages you in the same letter to make a donation to his re-election campaign.

U.S. Representative Charles Boustany will be there; he's a heart surgeon and brings a unique perspective to the negotiations but he is under no illusions:

"I'm going to go in hopeful that we can get something done but under no illusion and recognize that they are stacking the deck trying to move forward with the current proposals which the American people already largely oppose," said Boustany.

Meanwhile, Louisiana Purchase Mary Landrieu says the Republicans ... yes, the Republicans, aren't playing fair. Who says she doesn't have ... nerve?

But Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., one of those Democrats who has expressed reservations about using reconciliation for this purpose, indicated this week that she is not foreclosing going along with that option. "I'm staying open to see how these negotiations go forward," she told Politico. "I've not generally been a big supporter (of using reconciliatoin), but the Republican Party, the leadership, has really been very, very, very disingenuous in this process."

"Disingenuous"? Really, Mary? That really means something coming from you! Ouch!

All in all I'd say this could get really interesting! The pre-summit posturing is titillating enough, but tomorrow, all those big egos in one room? Oh to be a fly on the wall...

Here Comes Obamacare: Melt the Phones!

Via Open Congress:

Last night, the Democratic leadership released a Manager’s Amendment containing 42 pages of last-mute changes to their heath care bill (H.R. 3962), signaling that they are making progress in lining up the votes to pass it.

“With the completion of the Manager’s Amendment to the Affordable Health Care for America Act, we are now in the final stage of moving this critical bill through the House,” House Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer [D, MD-5] said last night.

The Democratic leadership has pledged to have the amendment posted online for at least 72 hours before beginning debate of the bill. According to the timestamp on the document, the amendment was officially filed at 8:53 p.m. ET on Tuesday night, meaning that the earliest debate could begin on the bill without breaking the pledge would be Friday night. It’s likely, however, that the debate won’t begin until next week. UPDATE: The vote is scheduled to take place on Saturday at 6 p.m. ET.

This issue takes front and center for me right now. More on the vote at Memeorandum.

Open Congress has more on the earmarks, the abortion funding, and the other issues that make this noxious bill even worse than one fathomed it could possibly be. Read the whole thing.

In the meantime, House members continue to read and post updates about the bill here. This one from John Boehner is interesting:

A monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run plan, as well those who select plans that have abortion coverage through the Exchange. The premium will be paid into an U.S. Treasury account and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services. The Pelosi bill describes the process in which the Health Benefits Commissioner is to assess the monthly premiums that will be used to pay for elective abortions under the government-run plan. The Commissioner must charge at a minimum $1 per enrollee per month

And no real shocker here, but Michelle Malkin has more on AARP's endorsement of the bill. You can read her thoughts here, and follow that thread at Memeorandum.

At noon today, Michele Bachmann is leading the charge to Washington to protest the bill. Be there, if you can!

Melt the phones today!

John Boehner Protests the Phantom Amendments

I Like It!

Allahpundit says it's a bit hokey, and I guess he's right; the twanging music is a little over the top. But I like it!

John Boehner Gets it Right

From The Hill:

When asked why he read portions of the cap-and-trade bill on the floor Friday night, Boehner told The Hill, "Hey, people deserve to know what's in this pile of s--t."

I wish he would have read the whole thing, sort of like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Might not have changed the vote, but who knows.

Word is that the Senate won't deal with the Cap 'n Tax until fall and that it's DOA when it gets there. That doesn't mean we should back off the fight though. It just gives us plenty of time to pound our Senators on the issue as well as the knuckleheads who voted for it - both Democrat AND Republican because the taxes and higher prices on goods that are coming from this bad boy will affect all of us.

In case you missed it, here is Boehner's Republican response from yesterday.

The Final Cap 'n Tax Vote and John Boehner!

Here are the turncoat Republicans who voted FOR the cap 'n tax boondoggle. It made a difference. The vote was 219-212. AND they brought Patrick Kennedy in from rehab to vote. Go figure. Desperate times....








McHugh (NY)
Reichert (WA)
Smith (NJ)
Lance (NJ)
LoBiondo (NJ)
Bono Mack (CA)
Castle (DE)
Kirk (IL)

Forty-four Democrats voted against the bill.

I spent the whole day in front of CSPAN twittering my favorite comments and when John Boehner got up and did his Mr. Smith Goes to Washington routine I was cheering! It was a bright spot in an otherwise dim day.

After the vote I went and drank Dos Equis and ate Mexican food, came home and walked my dog and some psycho woman chased me around the block in her SUV because my dog peed in the city property strip in front of her house. Just wait until they start taxing her dog farts.

John Boehner Says the Republicans Have a Better Plan

At this point in the debate I'm not sure either Democrats OR Republicans have the perfect answer to health care reform. What I DO know is that ObamaCare is not the answer.

Rep. John Boehner has a column this morning in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review about the Republican's plan. He says that Republicans have a better plan. He suggests that basically we just need to improve what we have.

The Republican plan offers incentives for those that don't have coverage to get the "coverage they can afford." He doesn't specify exactly what those incentives are, but on Fox News this morning Lindsey Graham suggested lower rates for non-smokers, for example. Tax credits have been listed as possible incentives for those shopping for coverage; the problem with that as I see it is that not everyone pays taxes. That's a whole other problem.

Boehner suggests giving small businesses "better options to make health care coverage available for employees and their families." He says that small businesses could work together through associations to purchase this coverage.

He promises to "root out health care waste," but honestly, nobody "rooted out" much waste in the Stimulus plan so I don't have a lot of faith in this. Had anybody up there even READ the Stimulus plan, much waste could possibly have been avoided....but I digress.

Reform of medical liability rules, which Boehner promises, does sound like a good plan. While people should be protected and should have recourse for boneheads that screw up, frivolous suits only raise costs for everyone and benefit only trial lawyers.

Boehner did not mention Medicare reform in his piece which seems to be a ticking time bomb. It drastically needs reform and much could be saved there.

Highlights of the Republican plan, according to CNN, are:

"Pools" of insurance. It would let states, small businesses and others group together to offer lower-cost, health care plans. Such pools would have to offer, at a minimum, any coverage that is provided in a majority of states.

Medicaid transfer. It would allow Medicaid users to take the value of their Medicaid benefits and transfer/apply those to a private health care plan instead.

Boosting of health care savings accounts. It would increase incentives for people, especially those in lower income brackets or over 55, to build up HSAs.

Automatic insurance. It would encourage employers to sign up their workers for health insurance automatically, so that employees would have to "opt out" of coverage if they didn't want it.

This Republican alternative bill also contains several health care ideas that are increasingly championed by both parties.

Longer coverage for youths. It would allow dependent children to stay on their parents' policies until they are 25.

Promotion of wellness at the workplace. It would encourage employers to reward employees for improved health.

Expansion of community health centers.

Mobile health care. It would allow Americans to maintain their specific health insurance policies when they lose or leave jobs.

In-home care. It would provide financial help and encourage more in-home care over institutions.

Limitations on malpractice lawsuits. There is general agreement over limiting such lawsuits, but a deep divide exists over exactly how much.

The bottom line is that right now nobody has the right answers; all I know is that Republicans need to get out there with a viable, clear and effective plan, otherwise ObamaCare is about to be the law of the land and that won't be good for anyone.