Posted on 09/02/2009 4:22:33 AM PDT by fiscon1
There’s a myth circulating in the blogosphere and the punditry, and it is threatening the Democrats’ majorities. It goes like this: In 1994, Democrats failed to pass a healthcare bill, and they lost their majorities. Ergo, if Democrats fail to pass a healthcare bill in 2009, they will be at serious risk of losing their majorities in 2010, so to save their majorities, they should make certain above all else to get something passed.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Wrong again! If they vote for this healthcare, they’re going to lose, big time! They might as well forget about it, because they’re getting voted out anyway because of all the other irresponsible, stupid, & greedy things they have already done.
I’d suggest that 1994 was not only about health care, or possibly even mainly about it. From my perspective, it was about congressional arrogance: you had the House Bank (huge here in flyover country), you had deficits---remember, this was why GW lost, because he a) broke his pledge, costing him GOP voters, and b) the recession, which drove up deficits further---and for Congress in 1994, the issue related to deficits was that the Republicans had tried for years to get the Dems pinned down on votes for balanced budget amendments, line-item vetoes, and other cost-containment measures, but the Dem leadership wouldn’t even allow these up for a vote because they feared defections in their own party. Thus, the myth perpetuated until today is that the “Contract With America” promised to pass ten items. Wrong! The Contract promised merely to bring them up for a vote (in which case the Republicans were pretty sure they’d pass, because of the defections). But the Dems wouldn’t even allow it.
Between the House Bank, and the arrogance/fear of the Congressional Dems to listen to the people and even vote on these things, you had the makings of a revolution. Clinton’s health care was the cherry on top. And it was “sold” to the American people and they didn’t like it. Betsy McGauhey’s expose on what was in Hillarycare absolutely killed it, just as the word getting out about the death panels (yes, they existed) and nationalized medicine and abortion and all the other things libs say aren’t in the bill, but, of course, are, have gotten out.
This statement is as inept as everything else coming out of this administration and liberal congress.
They lose their majorities when the American people periodically open their eyes and ears and realize once again what a bunch of little Stalin wannabes most of the national Dims are. And their lust to take over the health care industry makes it clear just how much they would restrict the free choices of the American people.
The Dims are only pro-choice for a very narrow range of issues. They are not pro-freedom.
An emergency meeting of Obama's 32 policy "czars," or a Bell Biv Devoe reunion? YOU MAKE THE CALL -- !!!
bttt
Do congressmen retain their super-health care even after they are voted out/leave Congress? Why not have BO toss in an amendment to allow them and their dependants to keep this perk inperpetuity?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.