September 23, 2009
Let the public read the bill first? Never!
Dems vote down amendment posting full, legislative version of the bill online 72 hours before they vote on it:
The Senate Finance Committee debated health-care legislation for a second day Wednesday, adopting a couple of Democratic-backed amendments and turning down Republican ones, including a measure to make the full bill available online before the panel votes on it.
The committee has a “conceptual” version of the health-care bill posted on its Web site, rather than a full legislative text of the bill. Compiling the complex language with amendments into a bill and consequently receiving an official cost estimate would take weeks, according to the committee’s chairman, Sen. Max Baucus.
By a 12-11 vote, the committee defeated a Republican amendment that would have required it to post the full bill at least 72 hours before it votes on whether to approve the measure.
The committee slogged through nearly two hours of debate on the amendment, which was offered by Sen. Jim Bunning (R., Ky.). Republicans argued that the amendment would make the committee’s process on the complicated legislation more transparent.
“It would seem crazy to most people that we vote on something when we didn’t see the legislative language,” Mr. Bunning said. “Well, they’d be right. It is crazy.”
Democrats countered that a conceptual, “plain English” version of the bill does a better job of explaining what the bill would do.
I would rather try to read the legislative version myself than have them explain it to me in “plain English.” I don’t know why they aren’t understanding the fact that the American public does not trust them and that we know they will twist the English language in order to sell their bill and dupe the public into buying it. But, then again, why should they let us read it when we all know that they’re not even going to read it before the vote on it?
Comments (0)
Curt Schilling announces he won’t be running for office.
You know it’s bad for Republicans in Massachusetts when even Curt “Bloody Sox” Schilling only has a 30 percent approval rating:
Pitching legend Curt Schilling has decided not to run for the Massachusetts Senate seat left open by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy.
The former Boston Red Sox ace, an outspoken conservative who campaigned for former Republican presidential candidate John McCain last year, told HBO Tuesday he has ruled out mounting a GOP bid for the coveted seat
“Regardless of the amount of support and outreach that’s been given to me, it just did not make sense,” Schilling said on HBO’s “Joe Buck Live.”
Earlier this month Schilling told a Boston radio station he was considering running for the seat, though added the chances were slim. Schilling also said then he had been approached by party larders — including McCain — who advised he should consider mounting a campaign.
But questions arose whether Schilling, a registered independent, would have been allowed to run on the GOP ticket. A recent poll of Massachusetts voters also suggested the former Red Sox star might not fair well in a state-wide political race, garnering less than a 30 percent approval rating.
I had been considering a move to Boston, but all of this Kopechne-Killing Kennedy seat filling has turned me off to the idea, just a tad. It would have been cool to see Schilling run for the seat. I’m quite sure he could have gotten his approval rating up through campaigning and by giving the voters a chance to learn and understand what he believes. But, it’s not like he can’t consider a run in the future.
A friend who lives in Boston didn’t think he was good because of his lack of experience, which begs the question: what experience makes you a good representative of the people? That’s what our representatives in Washington are elected to do. They are elected to represent us and our best interests. What experience do you need to be good at that? I mean, let’s look at what has been going on there, lately. The 9/12 march clearly showed that America doesn’t feel the people in power are representing them and their best interests.
In other news, the Red Sox will be playing the Yankees in NYC this weekend. Anyone up for a game? I would make the trip up to see that.
Comments (2)September 22, 2009
M*$$holes have officially changed the rules to ensure Democrats retain Kennedy’s seat
MA voters should kick these jerks out of office:
The Massachusetts state Senate has just approved legislation, 24-16, allowing Gov. Deval Patrick (D) to name an interim successor for the late Sen. Ted Kennedy.
The Boston Globe has a photo gallery of the possible temporary appointees, which include former 1988 presidential nominee Michael Dukakis and former DNC Chairman Paul Kirk, Jr.
But, of course, they won’t. What do you expect from a state the kept re-electing Kopechne-Killing Kennedy? I can just hear the outrage if the situation were reversed, but it would never be reversed because Republicans would never try this and the press and the public would never let them get away with it. Excuse me, I think I’m going to be sick.
The implications reach far beyond the current health care debate. The system is built to ensure that incumbents have an unfair advantage over their challengers. By avoiding an election, in which a Republican may have won the seat, and filling the seat with another Democrat they are ensuring that seat never leaves their slimy Democrat hands. The have effectivly taken away the choice from the people. How is it the Democrats always claim to be the party of choice when all I ever seem them doing is trying to take the electorate’s choices away?
Comments (0)
“Blood Money”: A film exposing the abortion industry’s financial motives
While doing my research for my third and final chapter of my thesis, I stumbled upon this:
This is exactly what my thesis is about. My intent is to show people that the debate we are having in this country is not about a woman’s right to privacy or a woman’s right to choose. It’s about money, just like everything else. People are slaughtering the unborn just to make a quick buck. To believe this debate is not financially motivated is naive. I encourage people to sign up and show your support for this film.
Comments (1)September 21, 2009
WaPo: Murtha Institute protecting America from terrorists? Nah, just giving tax dollars to friends.
Pennsylvania, is this really what you want from your elected officials?
The buzzer is broken at the John P. Murtha Institute for Homeland Security, and a paper note invites visitors, “Please knock.” On a summer afternoon, a lone intern answers the door of the mostly empty basement offices that over the years have overseen $50 million in federal funds awarded to projects designed to make the nation safer.
Named for the chairman of the powerful Appropriations subcommittee on defense, who has shepherded most of its funding, the Murtha Institute was supposed to embark on projects to protect America from terrorists and clean up environmental dangers. Much of the work went to companies and friends close to the congressman, and few of the projects met their goals, a Washington Post investigation shows.
But its spotty performance and internal turmoil have not deterred the congressman or his alma mater, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, which houses the center, from seeking more funds or dreaming big about the future.
Plans are underway to move the Murtha Institute from its current dormitory basement suite to a $53 million IUP athletic arena and conference center now under construction. Murtha (D-Pa.) secured a $3 million federal earmark for the building two years ago, and he sought another earmark this year before abruptly changing course as investigations of his defense appropriations and lobbying ties heated up. Murtha redirected some of that request to IUP research.
In a district that also boasts a regional airport named for Murtha and nearly a dozen other facilities bearing his name, the institute is another example of how the congressman has used federal funds to revitalize this economically depressed former coal-mining region. In doing so, he has raised questions among watchdog groups and outside critics about the use of taxpayer money for projects that appear to mostly benefit Murtha loyalists.
“He who pays the most homage to Murtha is the one who gets the money,” said Cathy Wentzel, a former manager of a research group linked to the Murtha Institute, who left when her boss was fired.
Nearly a dozen facilities bearing his name? It should be illegal for our representatives to use our tax dollars to build things and then slap their own name onto it. It’s disgusting. Not that I expect much better from a man who falsley accused our marines of a massacre in Haditha and then refused to apologize when all of the charges were dismissed. Just another example of political corruption, brought to the 12th district of Pennsylvania courtesy of their very own Rep. John Murtha.
Here’s the challenge 12th disctrict voters: vote this man out! Seriously, is he representing you and your values? Not unless your values are political corruption and the use of tax dollars to reward his political cronies. Oh wait, maybe that is what voters want. We did elect Obama. Honestly, though, doesn’t practically anybody have to be better than this? He is currently serving his 19th term. If people want change so much, why don’t they change this? Vote this guy out as soon as possible! Give the rest of America a break. Don’t give him another chance just because he has a D after his name and you do, too.
Comments (1)
Donating to the RNC is not the answer!
I don’t know if the RNC is the solution to our problem:
The Republican National Committee reported Monday raising $7.8 million in the month of August, besting its Democratic counterpart by $1 million over the same 30-day period.
During a month of heightened GOP attacks against President Obama’s health care reform proposals, the RNC also reported averaging 9,306 donations for each day of August and an average individual contribution of $41. The committee said it has $21 million cash on hand and $0 in debt.
I’m not necessarily against the RNC, by any means, but I’m not sure that donating money to them is necessarily the solution to our problem. I think people would be better off if they paid attention to the individual candidates and donated directly to them. I wouldn’t trust the RNC with my money. That’s all I’m saying.
Comments (0)September 20, 2009
Rule Five Sunday: Kate Beckinsale
All right boys, I’m back with some rule five action for you.
And, here’s one more for the road.
