That didn't take long: Schumer already changing his tune after photo-op with Rubio

On the morning of January 31st, I posted that Senate Democrats Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, and Bob Menendez would lie about considering border security as a trigger for any immigration reform bill in exchange for being seen with Republican Senator Marco Rubio. By yesterday afternoon, after the optics had played out a couple of days earlier, Schumer made good on that lie.

The photo op with Rubio was only 48 hours old.

Remember, Rubio told Limbaugh that if securing the border is not a trigger to a path to citizenship, he's out. Here is what Rubio said on Limbaugh's radio show on January 29th:

"If, in fact, this bill does not have real triggers in there, if there is not language in this bill that guarantees that nothing else will happen unless these enforcement mechanisms are in place, I won't support it.  But the principles clearly call for that.  Now, obviously, we have to make sure the law does, too."

Take note at the 10:15 mark in the video below, as Harry Reid finishes speaking. Schumer starts out lying and doesn't stop.

"We want the border to be secure (yeah, right). It's more secure than it was several years ago but it has a way to go (whatever, Chuck)..."

Then pay attention to this quote from Schumer:

"We're not using border security as an excuse or block to the path to citizenship... not to use it (border security) as a barrier to prevent the 11 million from eventually gaining a path to citizenship."

Rubio referred to border security as 'trigger' necessary for his willingness to support any legislation on immigration reform (citizenship) for illegal aliens. Two days later, Schumer referred to the exact same thing as a 'barrier' to immigration reform (citizenship) for illegal aliens.

Had Schumer said this prior to the photo-op with Rubio, there wouldn't have been a photo-op with Rubio. Like I said, these Democrats placed intrinsic value in the optics of standing with a supposed conservative champion in the Senate. Once they had that under their belt, Rubio is left flapping in the wind, having to explain to conservative voters why he even tried. The hardest lesson for Republicans seems to be understanding that no good can come from attempting to work with liars and socialists whose agenda involve lying without any regard for ethics.

Frankly, I don't understand why it's so difficult to learn. The mask is off and Democrats have been wearing it on their sleeve for quite some time now.

h/t Hot Air:

Video: Harry Reid in 2005 vs. Harry Reid in 2012

Why don't these dirtbags just admit they're liars?

For one thing, it would mean telling the truth.



h/t WZ

Video: RNC Chair calls Harry Reid a 'Dirty Liar'

Defending the Republican establishment is not something I do often but in this case, Rence Priebus gets a big hat tip.

Harry Reid IS a 'dirty liar'. Perhaps Romney would do better than he is if he spoke the cold hard truth when it's warranted like Priebus does here.

h/t WZ

Chilling Video: Steve Wynn gives Cavuto look behind Curtain of 'Politics in America'

Look for this to get significant play over the next couple of days. It's not often (perhaps never) that a wealthy businessman is this frank about his dealings with national politicians but Las Vegas hotel magnate, Steve Wynn does just that and it is more than just a little chilling. The fact that Wynn is this frank is trumped only by his charges which, in turn, are made all the more disturbing by the fact that he's so forthright about delivering them.

Here, Wynn tells what looks like an increasingly shell-shocked Neil Cavuto that politicians know they're doing wrong but do it anyway. He makes reference to Harry Reid hanging up on him and then his Congresswoman telling him during the Obamacare debate that while she didn't agree with the legislation, she voted for it for fear of being 'punished' by Nancy Pelosi. Watch the entire 1:30 of video. If you're not awake before watching this, you should be afterward.



A relevant follow-up clip comes from none other than Obama himself, who said these words while in Las Vegas. In light of what you heard Wynn say about Pelosi's tactics, consider the implications of Obama's words here when he says he is going to act 'with or without Congress.' It is long past time for the legislative branch to stand up for itself against this president.



h/t Hapblog

Harry Reid Uses the Nuclear Option

You might have to read the specifics of what happened multiple times, before you understand exactly what happened here (I did) but suffice it to say that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has decided to go to the mat with a 'Nuclear Option' that serves to completely re-write the rules of the Senate. And guess what? Obama's jobs bill is at the root of it all. To sum up, Harry Reid so wants to avoid a vote on the latest Obama monstrosity, that he has pushed the button to prevent that vote from taking place. In reality, he should be mad at Obama but he seems to be so far off the rails that he's taking it out on the Republicans and shooting future Democratic Senators in the collective foot.

H/T to Hot Air for providing a link to perhaps the best, easiest to understand explanation for what happened, via Philip Klein at Beltway Confidential:

In a stunning turn of events this evening, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., used an arcane legislative maneuver to effectively rewrite Senate rules to make it harder for the minority party to force uncomfortable votes on the majority.

The buildup to this point started on Tuesday, when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., tried to force a vote on President Obama's jobs bill as well as other Republican priorities by offering them as amendments to the China currency bill. Reid blocked the move.

Tonight, McConnell made what's called a "motion to suspend the rules," to allow a vote on the amendments. Such motions are almost always defeated, because they require a two-thirds majority to pass. But they're another way for the minority party to force uncomfortable votes. Even though the minority party doesn't get a direct vote on the amendment, how somebody votes on the motion becomes a sort of proxy for such a vote. In this case, for instance, if Democrats had voted down a motion for a vote on Obama's jobs bill, it would have put them in an awkward spot.

Though it's been the standing practice of the Senate to allow such motions by the minority, tonight Reid broke with precedent and ruled McConnell's motion out of order, and was ultimately backed up by Democrats.

Klein closes by saying this isn't a 'nuclear option' because it doesn't deal with filibusters; it deals with the amendment process. Nonetheless, it's certainly in the same spirit and it certainly changes the Senate rules.

It is fascinating, however, that the reason Harry Reid has gone to such lengths is the result of his unwillingness to allow his party to vote on a Bill supported by the POTUS, who is a member OF that party. This is shocking on many levels. This is prideful anger on display. Reid is too blinded by that anger to even realize that Obama's the source of it. Nonetheless, he's directing it at the Republicans.

Tangentially speaking, I'm waiting with bated breath to hear what John McCain thinks about this. Back in 2005, he was the Republican who led the infamous 'gang of 14' to prevent a Republican nuclear option involving the filibustering of judicial appointments, which was far more warranted. Appointments are supposed to get the 'advice and consent' of congress, not death by filibuster.

Hot Air has more.

Video: Harry Reid Tables His Own Bill

Let's set the table here. First, the Democrat controlled Senate has violated its Constitutional mandate to pass an annual budget; it's been more than 800 days. In this debt ceiling debate, the House has passed two bills and sent both to the Senate. Harry Reid has refused to allow votes on those bills. Instead, he's led votes to 'table' them while not passing a bill of his own.

In fact, when Republican minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) called for a vote on Reid's bill, Reid objected.

The man is insane.



h/t Weasel Zippers

Harry Reid wants Boehner to Ditch the Tea Party

For Senate Majority leader Harry Reid to publicly request that House Speaker John Boehner ditch the Tea Party when the Current Continuing Resolution expires on April 8th, it's quite obvious that he's concerned about the force of the Tea Party Republicans. Reid wants Boehner to abandon them and join with the Democrats to either put forth another CR that will continue kicking the can down the road in the name of avoiding a government shutdown or agree to more, though still negligible cuts.

Here is Reid's expression of 'disappointment' with the Tea Party via The Hill:

“I am extremely disappointed that after weeks of productive negotiations with Speaker Boehner, Tea Party Republicans are scrapping all the progress we have made and threatening to shut down the government if they do not get all of their extreme demands," Reid said in a statement.

"The division between the Tea Party and mainstream Republicans is preventing us from reaching a responsible solution on a long-term budget that will make smart cuts while protecting American jobs, and prevented negotiations from taking place over the weekend even as the clock ticks toward a government shutdown," he added.

Considering the number of Republicans who vowed that there would be no more CR's, Boehner better pay attention to the contingency that put him in power last November. Siding with Reid would be the equivalent of using the nuclear option on himself.

To illustrate how absurd both the Republican and Democrat proposals are with respect to budget cuts, consider that interest on the current debt is $250 Billion. Yet, both party establishments want to cut spending by significantly less than that. The Democrats have been standing firm at $10 Billion while Reid is hinting that an olive branch of $20 Billion may be on the table. Meanwhile, the Republicans are playing around with the higher number of $60 Billion in cuts.

The Tea Party is the only group making any sense, saying that both are drops in the proverbial bucket. As if that wasn't enough, a lot has happened since the last CR. In particular, a little kinetic military operation in Libya that has already blown countless dollars in additional spending.



h/t Hapblog

Video: Harry Reid wants to Save NPR because of 'Dog Racing' Story he Heard

The headline of this post is clearly that Harry Reid is arguing that National Public Radio (NPR) should not be de-funded because of an incredible story he heard about 'dog racing.' Oh, the HUMANITY! Translation: Harry Reid wants people to hear things that don't hold his feet to the fire. Perhaps equally egregious is the degree to which Sen. Lisa Murkowski (RINO) sucks up to Reid and echoes his sentiment about NPR. Listen all the way to the end because Reid says that when he's at his home in Searchlight, NV NPR is the only radio station he can hear during the day.

Maybe that's why he's such a mess.



And of course, Reid's argument for not de-funding the National Endowment for Humanities was to save the Cowboy Poetry Festival.



h/t Fox News

VIDEOS: CLUELESS HARRY REID POURS GASOLINE ON TEA PARTY FIRE

What do you get when you ask a D.C. politician to comment on a very passionate movement he knows absolutely nothing about? The answer is twofold. Number 1, he says something that clearly demonstrates his ignorance and number 2, he says something that only emboldens the movement. When asked about the Tea Party, Harry says it will 'disappear' when the economy gets better. If he meant when government gets serious about downsizing itself in the form of debt and deficit reduction, he might have a point but we all know that's not what he meant at all.

He's banking on the printing presses spitting out enough money into the economy that the people shut up. Not gonna happen, Harry.

CLUELESS

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Here's another one from Harry. This clip more tellingly expresses Harry's fear - that the Tea Party movement is going to force the Senate to vote on the Obamacare repeal legislation and Obama to veto it. He knows that there are far more Democrat Senators up for re-election in 2012 than Republicans and that they will put themselves in further danger of losing if they're forced to defend the health care albatross hanging around America's neck. Harry calls it a 'futile gesture,' again displaying two things. Number 1, that he really doesn't want the repeal movement to go forward. If he did, he wouldn't care. Number 2, as in the previous clip, he says something that will only embolden the Tea Party movement, which sees such a push as anything BUT futile.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

h/t Hapblog

AUDIO: BREITBART GETS INSIDE VIEW OF UNHINGED LEFT

This is, WITHOUT QUESTION, a must-hear! Yes, it's 9 minutes long but it gives clear thinking people an inside look into what we're up against. Andrew Breitbart, the Glenn Beck of the internet, was on-hand in Searchlight, NV - Harry Reid's hometown - for the March 27th Tea Party, which turned out to be a huge success.

Billed as "The Conservatives' Woodstock", Breitbart via phone gives you a firsthand account of the tactics of an angry leftwing mob. Listen as he describes a man pointing people in the wrong direction, threats of bodily harm to him from individuals within the mob, and then almost laughably, the cops are called by members of the mob to arrest Breitbart for something members of the mob did - throwing eggs.

Literally unbelievable.



Folks, some may brush this off as fringe mobs but if true - I understand there is video evidence - it also means that Pallywood has come to America. See for yourself. Here is a short 2006 documentary by Richard Landes in which he dissects the raw footage of a 60 Minutes segment from 2000. It is jaw-dropping not only to watch the tactics of these Palestinians but even more so when you realize that these are the tactics being used by the left here in the U.S.A.



h/t to Gateway Pundit for the Breitbart audio.

VIDEO: OBAMA VERSUS CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS

In reaction to Barack Obama's chastising the U.S. Supreme Court at the last State of the Union address, Sam Alito mouthed the words "not true", displaying his view that Obama's perception of the Citizens United decision was a mis-characterization.

While speaking at the University of Alabama law students recently, Chief Justice John Roberts responded to a question about Obama's comment at the SOU.



What started it all...



Of course, Obama's White House mouthpiece responded between his "umms". Via the New York Post:

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs responded to Roberts’ criticism. "What is troubling is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections -- drowning out the voices of average Americans," Gibbs said. "The president has long been committed to reducing the undue influence of special interests and their lobbyists over government. That is why he spoke out to condemn the decision and is working with Congress on a legislative response."

Perhaps one of the most mis-understood rulings, the Citizens United case arose when David Bossie's group attempted to market a film about Hillary Clinton before the 2008 election. The ruling overturned a law that said Citizens United could not do so. In other words, Gibbs' account IS a mis-characterization of the decision.

Now, the WSJ is reporting that Harry Reid, of all people, is throwing boulders from the balcony of his glass house:

Now, Harry Reid has entered the ring. Yesterday, at a meeting with liberal bloggers, the Senate Majority Leader took a swing at Roberts.

“Do you think John Roberts knows or cares how people get elected?” Reid said, adding that the justices on the court lack understanding of the practical impact of their decisions.

As Majority leader of the most corrupt congress in the history of the United States, Reid once again lowers the bar on himself when it comes to hypocrisy - and you didn't think it was possible.

h/t to Gateway Pundit

STATES GO ON OFFENSE AGAINST THE FEDS

Fox News is reporting on the thirteen state Attorneys General who are threatening to file a lawsuit against Obamacare and the bribes that helped to get it passed by the Senate. Ben Nelson's deal isn't the only one but it is the most blatant example and did put this monstrosity over the top.

FOX reported: COLUMBIA, S.C.

(AP) -- Republican attorneys general in 13 states say congressional leaders must remove Nebraska's political deal from the federal health care reform bill or face legal action, according to a letter provided to The Associated Press Wednesday.

"We believe this provision is constitutionally flawed," South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster and the 12 other attorneys general wrote in the letter to be sent Wednesday night to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

And this....

The letter was signed by top prosecutors in Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington state. All are Republicans, and McMaster and the attorneys general of Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania are running for governor in their respective states.

As I've written BEFORE on the Nelson deal, there are two very specific portions of the Constitution that speak to this (maybe more).

Article I, Section 9 (Limits of Congress), Part 6:
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

Article IV, Section 2:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

This one should move to the top of the Supreme Court's Dockett.

13 state Attorneys General winning this lawsuit against Obama, Reid, and this health care monstrosity would be one heck of a smackdown.

h/t to GP

VIDEO: HARRY REID COMPARED TO BIBLICAL JOB, SOLOMON, AND SAMSON

Heresy anyone? Iowa Senator Tom Harkin (D) actually has the unmitigated gall to compare Harry Reid to Job, Solomon, and Samson based on his ramming an unconstitutional health care bill through the senate while paying off Senators in order to do it. True humility wouldn't permit Harkin to make such claims nor would it allow an un-indicted criminal feign humility while secretly beaming with arrogance.

Despicable.



h/t to HAP

AUDIO: WHITE HOUSE TELLS STUPAK TO BE QUIET

Pro-life Democrat Representative from Michigan, Bart Stupak has been somewhat vocal about his opposition to the language in the Senate bill that permits taxpayer funded abortions. He's also leading a contingent of other Democrats in the House who are saying they won't vote in support of the current bill unless the abortion language is changed.

With the way Democrats have been dropping like flies when it comes to standing up on principle instead of having a price, I'm not holding my breath that Stupak will stick to his guns either but it's an interesting development nonetheless.

In an interview with CNSNews, Stupak is speaking forthrightly in saying that he is being pressured by the White House directly to stop talking about the bill until "sell" him on the language. I wonder if that means bought off like Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu.

Here is the actual quote:

“They think I shouldn’t be expressing my views on this bill until they get a chance to try to sell me the language. Well, I don’t need anyone to sell me the language. I can read it. I’ve seen it. I’ve worked with it. I know what it says. I don’t need to have a conference with the White House. I have the legislation in front of me here.”

Click HERE for the audio..

According to the CNSNews Report:

Stupak said he is not alone in being pressured from the White House and the House Democratic leadership – other pro-life Democratic colleagues apparently are, as well. But they plan to hold firm, he said.

“We’re getting a lot of pressure not to say anything, to try to compromise this principle or belief,” Stupak said. “[T]hat’s just not us. We’re not going to do that. Members who voted for the Stupak language in the House – especially the Democrats, 64 Democrats that voted for it – feel very strongly about it. It’s been part of who we are, part of our make up. It’s the principle belief that we have. We are not just going to abandon it in the name of health care."

As Landrieu and Nelson are appearing very uncomfortable thanks to an engaged public, hopefully Stupak and his gang will take note. Then again, this White House has a way of mounting pressure the likes of which we've not seen in past administrations.

Stupak needs to prepare to be Alinsky'd. But he also needs to study Alinsky's Rule #1:

Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.

A rule tailor-made for bullying.

HERE is the entire CNSNews Report.

h/t to DRUDGE

VIDEO: DEMINT RESPONDS TO CONSTITUTIONALITY OF REID LANGAUGE

Ed Morissey over at Hot Air does the leg work on this one along with the Weekly Standard (link below). On page 1020 of Reid's health care bill is verbiage that Republican senator Jim DeMint seems to imply may be strongly unconstitutional. First, check out the verbiage.

From page 1020
SUBSECTION.—It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.

DeMint seems to be pointing to this language as wording that will unconstitutionally prevent future any future congress from repealing this monstrosity.

Morrissey points to this section of the Constitution:

Article I, Section 5:
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

Be sure to watch this entire video of DeMint...



Anyone think this had anything to do with why the bill was crafted behind closed doors without any Republicans present?

Read all about it at HOT AIR

ACORN FUNDED THROUGH OBAMACARE?

John McCormack at the Weekly Standard Blog points out that squirrelly Illinois Senator Roland Burris vowed not to vote for the Reid health care bill unless it had a public option. The bill does not have a public option yet Burris still voted for it. Did something in the bill sufficiently alleviate Burris' concerns? Perhaps it was in the Manager's Amendment of the bill, which addresses something called - are you ready for this - the "Office of Minority Health". Sounds a little discriminatory, doesn't it?

Burris, according to WS, pointed to the MANAGER'S AMENDMENT when asked why he voted in support of a bill without a public option:

The provision he cites, found on pages 240 through 248 of the manager's amendment, requires that six different agencies each establish an “Office of Minority Health.” The agencies are the “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.”

Potentially, the most disturbing part of this is that while the most recent ruling on whether ACORN can receive federal funds was that withholding funds is unconstitutional. That may still be overturned but the Manager's amendment appears to have insulated ACORN should they be ruled ineligible for those federal funds:

Earlier this year, Congress passed and the president signed into law a ban on federal funding for ACORN, but a judge ruled that that law was unconstitutional. If a higher court reverses that ruling, ACORN may be prohibited from receiving funds through the Office of Minority Health earmark. But according to the Senate legislative aide, ACORN would still "absolutely" qualify for federal funding through the provision in the underlying Reid bill because the anti-ACORN appropriations amendment would not apply to funds provided through the health care exchanges.

This would mean that a United States senator is in support of protecting an organization exposed as an enabler of, among other things, a child prostitution ring.

h/t to BG

BEN NELSON DEAL ON OBAMACARE BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL

The deals granted to both Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu smack of criminality, both in the U.S. Legal code and the Constitution. Unfortunately, running roughshod over the Constitution has become a new sport apparently. First off, the Constitution. There are two Articles that have been blatantly violated without consequence.

Article I, Section 9 (Limits of Congress), Part 6:

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

Article IV, Section 2:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Keep in mind that taxpayers in 49 states will be subsidizing both Louisiana and Nebraska. LINK to U.S. Constitution.

Now, onto the U.S. legal code. BIG GOVERNMENT has more on this. It is beyond debate in my view that the law has been broken. The issue now becomes who in power is going to enforce it?


Bribery of Public Officials -

DEMS RAM IT THROUGH AT 1AM

The American people will be getting something they have loudly said they don't want, disguised as a Christmas present. At 1am on Monday morning, the 21st, 60 Senators (58 Democrats, 1 Liberal Independent, and 1 Independent Socialist) successfully voted to cut off debate and send the latest version of Obamacare to the floor for a vote, which will almost certainly take place at 7pm on Christmas eve.

A Christmas eve vote? Why is that so important? It has the feel of an additional (and unnecessary) smack in the face to the American people. As bad as Harry Reid is, he's not from Chicago and these are Chicago-style politics. Notice how Reid has become the face that is being demonized by the American public while Obama remains detached and smiling?

Byron York at the Washington Examiner explains why Reid needed the 1am cloture vote to get that Christmas eve vote:

This is how it works. Reid introduced his amendment Saturday morning. (It's the one that has the Sen. Ben Nelson Medicaid buy-off and other curious features.) Senate rules say there has to be an intervening day between the introduction of the amendment and a vote on limiting debate on the amendment. That intervening day was Sunday. That meant the cloture vote could be held Monday, or any time thereafter. The rules also say that the vote has to be held at least one hour after that next day has begun. So the Senate's Monday business began at 12:01 a.m., and the Reid Amendment vote could be held at 1:01 a.m. (As it happened, Reid himself spoke last, and his remarks went over the mark by six minutes.)

After the middle-of-the-night vote, there will be a maximum of 30 hours debate on the amendment. Then there will be a 30-hour period for a Republican substitute bill, followed by a 30-hour period on the final bill. Reid's schedule calls for a final, final vote on the health care measure to take place at about 7 p.m. on Christmas Eve. Voila! The bill will be passed by Christmas. That couldn't be done unless the Reid Amendment cloture vote were held in the earliest hours of Monday morning, setting off the final chain of votes and waiting periods. "This is purely to satisfy a self-imposed, arbitrary deadline," says the GOP aide.

Read York's entire piece HERE.

INSIDE BASEBALL LOOK AT HEALTHCARE DEBATE

John Hawkins at Right Wing News has some interesting information via an inside source behind the scenes of the healthcare debate taking place on Capitol Hill this week. It's looking more and more like Harry Reid was simply trying to portray optimism in the hopes it would actually rub off and give his diabolical plot a boost.

Here is the exchange:

John: Hey, if this latest Medicare/healthcare bill goes down in flames, will Reid go for reconciliation? Also, I assume if this fails, we're into January, right?

Senate Aide X: Yes, January and I doubt if they'll go for reconciliation.

John: Why do you doubt reconciliation? I ask because I am thinking it won't get 60.

Senate Aide X: I just haven't heard any talk of it.

John: Do you think it will get 60? I am thinking, no.

Senate Aide X: I don't doubt the Dems may do anything to pass it, so I'm not ready to declare it dead.

John: But still, it's looking grim right?

Senate Aide X: They are in much worse shape now than a week ago. If the bill dies this week, it will be because Dems just let it crumble through infighting and the Tea Party/American people standing up in August and demanding through weeks of recent phone calls and protests that it be stopped.

John: If it were to pass somehow, do you think it could die going through ping pong, back and forth between the House?

Senate Aide X: No! Pelosi will rubber stamp whatever the Senate passes.

John: So, you think all these demands from the Left about the public option and the Blue Dogs saying they have to have the Stupak Amendment in there are all for show?

Senate Aide X: No, the left-roots passion is real, but if you are Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, you know this is a one shot deal. This moment won't happen again soon and it's better to cut any deal you can to socialize health care as much as you can now. Take the win, go for more later.

John: One last thing: Chances of passing a health care bill? Give me a percentage.

Senate Aide X: Less than 50% now

John: Thanks for your time. Have a good night.

Be sure to read Hawkins' COMMENTS.

VIDEO: HARRY REID GETS LOWER THAN PRIMORDIAL OOOZE

My apologies for the obscure metaphorical reference but I really can't think of much else that adequately describes this while topping Harry's pathetic attempt at a comparison. As Harry Reid continues to beat his proverbial head against the wall to ram a healthcare bill through the Senate that the American people have already said they don't want, he leapfrogs over the race card and goes for the slavery card.

If you can follow this logic, feel free but Reid is actually equating the Republicans, who want to stop this monstrosity with slave masters who wanted to halt the abolition of slavery by stopping a similar "monstrosity".

Someone should tell Harry that his comparison reflects directly on him and his party because it was the Republican party that was literally created as a direct result of the desire to end slavery. Someone should also tell him that the KKK itself was created by the Democrats and was their armed wing.

Then again, if he doesn't hear his constituents or care about the polls, why bother?

wow



h/t to DRUDGE