10.31.2009 0

The Wire: Dems on Obamacare – No Ultimate Sacrifice

  • On: 11/04/2009 10:40:05
  • In: Slapshot

  • Dems on Obamacare: No “Ultimate Sacrifice”

    Dems on both sides of The Hill are reportedly keeping a wary eye on today’s nationwide elections as they make up their minds on how far they’re willing to go to salvage Barack Obama’s “transformational” health care grab. Here’s how one top Blue Dog explained it (off the record, of course):

    “There’s an old story about a fellow asking a pig and a chicken how they felt about being such an important part of a farmer’s breakfast. While the chicken crowed, the pig just grunted. When asked why, pig replied, ‘For her, it’s just a contribution. For me, it’s the ultimate sacrifice.’

    “Well, a bunch of us don’t mind contributing a little bit to help Obama transform health care. But, if that election goes bad Tuesday, you can bet we aren’t about to make the ultimate sacrifice.”

    Interpretation: If the Dems do badly on what now increasingly looks like “Bloody Tuesday,” farmer Obama may end up eating crow all alone — while the Dogs turn tale, head home, and sit up and beg to make amends.
     

    But, the Question is: Can They Count?

    It staggers the mind to think of how far out of touch the DC Republican Establishment Guys (DREGs) are with the nationwide Republican base – especially when all the GOP leadership has to do is add and subtract to see why their numbers aren’t multiplying.

    Rasmussen commented on Monday that “73% of Republicans believe their party’s representatives in Congress have lost touch with the GOP base.” For the sake of Newt Gingrich, the NRC’s Mike Steele, the NRCC’s Jeff Sessions, and the other DREGS, we hasten to note, that comes to pretty much 3 out of 4.

    To make matters worse, Rasmussen reports that only 56% of conservatives nationwide now consider themselves Republican. Again, simplifying this for Newt, Mike, and Jeff, Rasmussen explains: “In other words, nearly half of all conservatives nationwide reject the Republican Party label. “

    So, why, sane minds want to know, do Newt, Mike, Jeff, et. Al., insist pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into the coffers of far-left hacks like Dede Scozzafava? And why do they continue coddling inveterate turncoats like John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Arlen Specter (whom they managed to coddle all the way over to the other side of The Aisle)?

    The truth is: their answer is actually increasingly immaterial – because the aforementioned 73% of grassroots Republicans nationwide have already given a definitive answer of their own: Either they go, or we go. And the number “NY23” should have made that abundantly clear even to the numerically challenged DREGs of Washington society.

    Speak Now, or Forever Hold Your Peace

    The Obama Administration’s handpicked Valerie Jarrett automaton over at the FCC – “Diversity Czar” (and Hugo Chavez idolater) Mark Lloyd – has announced some aggressive new plans for stifling free speech make Torquemada green with envy.

    Specifically, he intends to use the Administration’s proposed new “National Broadband Policy” to seize control of Internet chat. He also has plans to force commercial radio and television stations broadcasting too many conservative and Christian shows to pay a fine to support public broadcasting devoid of such “problem” programming. And should all of that fail, his final resort is to eliminate advertiser-supported media altogether.

    To those who dare suggest that his policies would violate the First Amendment, Mr. Lloyd has a ready answer. It’s found in 2006 book, Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America: “At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.”

    Read all about it (while you still can) in South Carolina legislature Rep. Tim Scott’s chilling op-ed in the Charleston Post & Courier, “Beware of FCC’s ‘back door’ strategy to stifle free speech.”


    Copyright © 2008-2020 Americans for Limited Government