The House voted on Wednesday to repeal the sweeping healthcare law enacted last year, as Republicans made good on a central campaign pledge and laid down the first major policy marker of their new majority.

The vote was 245-189.

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the healthcare law on the books would increase spending, raise taxes and eliminate jobs.

“Repeal means paving the way for better solutions that will lower the costs without destroying jobs or bankrupting our government,” Boehner said in remarks on the floor before the vote.

“Let’s stop payment on this check before it can destroy more jobs or put us into a deeper hole.”

The vote to roll back the president’s signature domestic achievement of the 111th Congress just 10 months after its passage underscores the deep divisions that still surround the new law. But whether House action will signal the beginning of a rapid dismantling of the healthcare overhaul or serve merely as a historical footnote remains to be seen.

Democratic leaders in the Senate have vowed to shelve the repeal bill, and Obama has said he would veto repeal if it ever reached his desk.

With those threats in mind, GOP leaders dared the Senate to take up the measure, and they promised to fight the healthcare law in other ways if repeal failed.

Harry Reid has put on a brave face, saying that a vote for repeal in the Senate would be a waste of time because it would undoubtedly fail. Not only that, but Reid claims Americans want Obamacare! Of course, if either of the above were a certainty then surely it wouldn’t matter if they voted on it in the Senate. If Americans truly love Obamacare so much, then this would be his golden opportunity to show how the radical Republicans who hate the poor are out of touch and out of control, and the Senate Democrats are the ones who really care about the country.

Reality is that there are a number of politically vulnerable Democrats in the Senate (hello, Ben Nelson?) who can’t afford to vote for Obamacare a second time. Democrats from swing states won’t necessarily feel comfortable screwing over their constituents by voting to support Obamacare for a second time, especially when they’ve got to face those constituents next year. Is it likely that an Obamacare repeal would pass the Senate? No, but it is possible, which is why Reid is probably crying into a little pink blanket somewhere right now. He’s politically in a tough spot. If Obamacare is so great and makes voters so happy, then what’s the problem with having another go-around with it in the Senate?

What is for sure is that even if the repeal were to pass in the Senate, there aren’t enough votes to overturn Obama’s veto. And Obama would veto the repeal, which is fine, because it would just make him look even more entrenched, radical, and out of touch. Republicans, meanwhile, are promising that if they can’t repeal Obamacare, they’ll defund and delay it as much as they can.

“Today we are keeping that pledge, and it is a start,” GOP Whip Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) said.

If repeal were ultimately unsuccessful, Cantor has said, Republicans would “do everything we can to delay and defund the provisions of the bill.”

This is exactly what Republicans need to be focusing on if they want to remain in office. We need to restore some sense of fiscal sanity to Washington, and that’s what Republicans need to concentrate on doing for the next two years.

ShareThis

No, really.

What’s funny is how they say “some” want to repeal Obamacare, and they’re talking about it “on the campaign trail”. Yes, because it’s just conservative politicians who are trying to be mean! Of course, the majority of Americans want Obamacare repealed, but what does that matter? We’ve got lazy moochers to take care of!

I’m sure that the parents of these leeches are super duper proud to see their offspring brag about having to rely on Mommy and Daddy because they can’t get a job. So basically, all of us productive Americans should shoulder the burden of taking care of these unproductive spoiled brats. Nice. I bet that’ll be a really successful movement. It’s pathetic — these slackers really do just expect everything to be handed to them on a silver platter, don’t they? Free health care, free jobs, free housing… but I doubt a single one of them would be willing to do the work to earn those things. They just expect it to be given to them, without the slightest comprehension of how we can afford to give them all those things.

Oh, and you know, if health care is so important, there’s an easy way to get guaranteed health care. Join the military.

But that’s just too much work, and it’s icky too, isn’t it?

ShareThis

Sarah Palin has had the femisogynists hopping over the past year. The media tried to destroy her in 2008 and failed. Since then, she’s become a force to be reckoned with.

She’s been sweeping the country, becoming influential in elections, writing a best-selling book, and becoming a Fox News contributor. Lefties were furious that they couldn’t keep this woman down. But nothing got the feminazis’ panties more in a bunch than when Sarah Palin called herself a feminist.

She has been empowering conservative women to get involved, calling for all of the “mama grizzlies” to rise up and defend the future of their country for their children. Furious that someone else was speaking for women other than Feminazi Approved Womyn, the leftist EMILY’s List decided to make a video trying to hijack the term mama grizzlies from Sarah Palin.

This plan radically backfired, and they’ve been the laughingstock of the blogosphere ever since. After all, who had the idea that dressing up like Ewoks to diss Sarah Palin would be a good one?

EMILY’s List is a pro-abortion group, and their number one beef with Sarah Palin, like most femisogynists, is likely that she’s pro-life. On top of that, she doesn’t like government run health care! Egads! Apparently, these are the things that “real” mama grizzlies — i.e., lefty mama grizzlies — care about. How could little bear cubs survive without knowing they can have an abortion when they’re 16 while their mothers proudly look on?

One of the biggest problems with lefty women trying to co-opt the phrase mama grizzlies is that … well, come on — who would ever see one of them as a mama grizzly? When you think of a pit bull or a grizzly bear, you think of strength, independence, ferocity.

I’d love to name one of today’s so-called liberals that could be described as strong, independent, and fierce, but there aren’t any. When attacked, lefties automatically go into whine mode. When in doubt, accuse someone of being a racist and scream that IT’S NOT FAIR!!!!. Then they’ll demand that the government step in to right the injustice, because the notion of handling your own problems for yourself is an idea that lefties just can’t understand.

When you need a nanny state government to take care of you cradle to grave, you can’t exactly then turn around and label yourself as a strong, independent, capable American, can you? People have been laughing at this, because who would ever describe today’s femisogynists as strong, kick-ass women? They probably don’t even understand why people are laughing at them.

A lefty feminazi attack when her cubs are threatened? Ha! Their version of “attacking” would involve a rally for NOW and whining for President Obama to do something.

But that’s only scratching the surface. The EMILY’s List ewoks got an epic fail for more reasons than just unintentional hilarity.

Let’s consider the creepiness of wanting to fight for the right of your daughter to choose. Think about that. They want their daughters to be able to have abortions. There’s something inherently twisted about that.

How could a mother want her daughter to have an abortion, to kill her future grandchild? Abortion is inherently anti-woman. There’s not much more harmful to women than the glorifying of abortion. Abortion actually is in fact harmful. Yet these women see taking away abortion as the number one threat to their daughters? That’s twisted and sick.

On top of that, the hyperbole is disturbing. They claim that if Sarah Palin had her way, health care wouldn’t exist in America … because, you know, before Obamacare was passed, no one had health care in the United States.

They’re for some reason mum on the fact that the Obama administration is trying to decertify Avastin, a breast cancer treatment drug, for cost reasons. But hey, Sarah Palin wants to take away ALL HEALTH CARE. Obama is God, and Sarah Palin is the devil.

Oh, and Sarah Palin (and most conservatives) doesn’t want to take away unemployment benefits. We just don’t want bloat those benefits by putting even more debt onto the shoulders of not only our cubs, but our grandcubs and our great-grandcubs.

Despite all of this, the truth is that yes, Sarah Palin doesn’t speak for these women. Sarah Palin is a pro-life conservative Republican. These women are pro-abortion lefty femisogynists. The major difference? Sarah Palin wouldn’t likely tell these women that they can’t call themselves feminists or that they aren’t true women.

Yet that’s exactly what’s happened to Sarah Palin!

Sarah Palin was told that she wasn’t a real feminist because she wasn’t pro-life. Women who voted Republican were told that they weren’t real women.

The original feminists, like Susan B. Anthony, were pro-life. They didn’t advocated feminist litmus tests or demand that voting women only vote a certain way. Today’s femisogynists couldn’t be further away from what feminists actually stood for, yet they’ve hijacked the movement and sought to silence strong conservative women.

When that didn’t work, they tried to hijack Sarah Palin’s massively successful mama grizzly campaign. Even the XX Factor, Slate‘s so-called feminist blog, called this a win for Sarah Palin. Even people on their own team saw this for what it was: an epic fail for the EMILY’s List ewoks.

ShareThis

It basically guts Obamacare.

Voters in Missouri overwhelmingly opposed requiring people to buy health insurance, in a largely symbolic slap at the Obama administration’s health overhaul.

The referendum was the first chance for voters to express a view on the overhaul, although turnout in the state was low and Republican voters significantly outnumbered Democrats.

With all precincts reporting, 71% of voters supported Proposition C, establishing a state law that says Missouri cannot compel people to pay a penalty or fine if they fail to carry health coverage. Twenty-nine percent voted against the proposition.

The state law runs counter to the federal health law President Barack Obama signed in March, which calls on most Americans to carry coverage or pay a fine.

Some state attorneys general have challenged the insurance mandate as unconstitutional. Defenders of the law say the mandate falls within Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce and levy taxes.

The Missouri vote is likely to have little immediate practical effect because the mandate doesn’t take effect until 2014. If federal courts uphold the federal law as constitutional, it would take precedence over any state law that contradicts it.

So, basically, as long as Obamacare is upheld in federal courts — and honestly, how likely is it that it won’t be? — then this state law is meaningless. It does, however, send a strong slap in the face to the Obama administration. But really, they should have expected it. Democrats in Congress passed Obamacare against the will of the American people, who overwhelmingly opposed it. Did they really think that we would just roll over and accept it?

The problem is that Democrats, as is so common with politicians, counted on voters being stupid and forgetful. They never expect to be held accountable for their actions. But they reached too far, and like it or not, they’re going to have to pay for what they’ve done. Missouri voters just showed Congress that they haven’t forgotten about Obamacare and they’re just as angry about it as they were the day it passed.

ShareThis

Organ donation has become a vital way to save lives around the world, but a vast shortage of donors continues to mean people are losing their lives while on waiting lists.

But there is a unique proposal that could change all that.

New York State Assemblyman Richard Brodsky nearly lost his daughter, Willie, at 4 years old when she needed a kidney transplant, and again 10 years later when her second kidney failed.

“We have 10,000 New Yorkers on the list today waiting for organs. We import half the organs we transplant. It is an unacceptable failed system,” Brodsky said.

To fix that, Brodsky introduced a new bill in Albany that would enroll all New Yorkers as an organ donor, unless they actually opt out of organ donation. It would be the first law of its kind in the United States.

“Overseas, 24 nations have it. Israel has it. Others have it. And it works without a lot of controversy,” Brodsky said.

Currently one of the biggest obstacles to being a donor is while 9 out of 10 are favorable to it only 1 out of 10 is signed up to be a donor.

Not many people would argue that being an organ donor is necessarily a bad thing. That doesn’t mean that any of those people should be forcibly made an organ donor. Yes, this law apparently will let people opt out. But are all New Yorkers going to be notified first? Will they have a fair chance to opt out, or is this going to be done quietly, so that as few people as possible notice that it’s happened? And what happens if too many people opt out? Will they remove the ability to opt out?

This is just a horrible idea all around. There’s too many questions, and it seems like too much of a slippery slope. While I can understand Mr. Brodsky’s reasons for wanting to do this, it still is wrong. The state does not own our bodies. They belong to us. (I know, it seems like an obvious concept, but look who’s governing our country right now. Apparently it’s not all that obvious.) And if someone doesn’t want to be an organ donor — either for religious reasons, for personal reasons, or because they just don’t want to for no reason at all — then that is their right.

And there’s more to worry about with this bill. Just a few days ago, Peter Orszag confirmed that Obamacare would impose rationing. Sarah Palin’s warnings about the so-called death panels were true. How long will it take for these death panels to make decisions based on the waiting lists for organ donations? Let’s say you’re fighting cancer. It’s advanced, but there’s still a chance you could beat it with aggressive but expensive treatment. Now, be honest. Would it be completely out of the realm of possibility that your treatment would be denied so that your organs could be harvested?

I know, it sounds far-fetched. And this forced organ donation is only taking place in New York… for right now, anyways. What if Democrats in Congress think that this is just a great idea? Would you really put it past them? I know I wouldn’t. If they did, the aforementioned scenario is not that unbelievable. Slippery slopes exist, my friends. It may start off as a well-intentioned state program in New York, but who says that’s where it will end?

Richard Brodsky is currently running for New York Attorney General. He is a typical liberal Democrat who thinks that everything belongs to the government — apparently even your body. Politicians who think this way are dangerous, and hopefully, Richard Brodsky will find himself without a job come November.

Cross-posted at The Green Room and Stop the ACLU.

ShareThis

Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak, the congressman who led anti-abortion rights Democrats in the House during health care negotiations, will retire this year, CBS News has learned. He is expected to announce his plans later this morning.

Had Stupak sought re-election, he would have faced challengers from both the left and the right backed by interest groups angered by Stupak’s health care vote.

Stupak negotiated with Democratic leaders down to the eleventh hour for stricter abortion language in the health care bill, but he ultimately voted for it after President Obama agreed to sign an executive order assuring the new laws will keep taxpayer dollars from funding abortions.

That prompted the conservative Tea Party Express to launch a $250,000 ad campaign against Stupak this week. The group also scheduled a handful of stops on its bus tour in Stupak’s district.

On the left, the abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America has been working to defeat Stupak and instead elect his Democratic primary challenger Connie Saltonstall.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

ShareThis

VAN SUSTEREN: Why do you think that there was such — and I don’t want to use a term that overstates it, but there were an awful lot of people who didn’t like it. More people were unhappy, I think, with the bill, the health care bill, than were happy with it. Why do you think that?

SEN. HARRY REID, D-NEV, SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: Because the loud minority made a lot of noise. Now that the legislation passed, it is amazing how much different people attitude is. I mean traveling on an airplane people are so nice to me. We have people — it wasn’t that way before.

… So everybody acknowledges with rare exception that what we did was terrific, and if there are some problems in out years we’ll be happy to look at them.

Rare exception?? Really, Harry Reid?

Let’s just take a look at the numbers, shall we?

According to Rasmussen, 54% of Americans are in favor of repeal. The tea parties are more popular than Obama is. And Harry Reid is only at 39% against three Republican opponents.

Gallup shows similar numbers. Their polling shows a majority in opposition to the bill.

CBS News likewise found that the majority of Americans are against the health care bill.

And in Nevada? A full 62% of Nevadans if most incumbents up for reelection lost, and 62% also want Obamacare repealed. This is higher than the national rate.

And Harry Reid wants to make this out to be a “rare exception”?

You’re living in a dream world, buddy. Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to this health care bill and always were. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid just didn’t want to listen because they had an agenda to push. This now means they have to do one more thing: start preparing to find a new job.

Cross-posted at The Green Room and Liberty Pundits.

ShareThis

Tucked away inside a new Washington Post/ABC News poll is a key figure — 72 percent. That’s the percentage of voters who disapprove of the job Congress is doing, and the number hasn’t been that high since — you guessed it — the week before the 1994 election.

The Cornhuser Kickback and Gator-aid — two controversial provisions in the healthcare bill — are a couple of attractively named and accessible reasons why people don’t like how Congress operates. And at no point in the last 16 years has that picture been so clear to voters.

Republicans are by no means immune to the dirty politics that permeate Washington. Democrats, though, have brought it to a whole new level. Pelosi promised Americans the most ethical Congress ever — and instead, we got corruption, cronyism, thuggery, bribery, and secrets. Obama promised Americans hope and change — and instead, we got Chicago style corrupt politics as usual. Ethics? Transparency? Yeah, right. It’s no wonder that Americans are furious.

And then, Democrats hypothetically spat in the faces of their constituents, passing a takeover of the American health care system against our will.

Americans are furious, all right. And this November, the chickens are coming home to roost. You can’t ignore the will of the American people and expect them to smile blandly and keep voting you into office. Represent the American people well, or you will be voted out. It’s that simple.

Now, perhaps I’m naive. But I always felt that there was a very good chance that we’ll take back Congress this November. This doesn’t prove it, but it sure does look more and more likely, doesn’t it?

Cross-posted at The Green Room.

ShareThis

The vandalism began last weekend, when the House debated the health bill for final passage. In Wichita, someone broke the window of a county Democratic Party headquarters with a brick that had “No to Obama” and “No ObamyCare” written on it. Lyndsey Stauble, executive director of the Sedgwick County Democratic Party, said she went to work Saturday morning to clean up the shattered glass around her desk.

… Over the next 24 hours, thrown bricks shattered the glass doors and windows of party headquarters from Rochester, N.Y., to Cincinnati. A propane gas line at the Charlottesville home of Rep. Tom Perriello’s brother was severed Tuesday after a self-identified “tea party” activist posted what he believed to be the Virginia Democrat’s address on a Web site and urged opponents to “drop by” to convey their opposition to his yes vote on the health bill.

A brick was thrown through the Niagara Falls district office of Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (D-N.Y.), who also received a threatening voice-mail message referring to sniper attacks. The front door to the Tucson district office of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) was shattered. And Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), whose last-minute negotiations to bar federal funding of abortion helped secure the bill’s passage, received a fax with a drawing of a noose and an anonymous voice mail saying: “You’re dead. We know where you live. We’ll get you.”

In Washington on Wednesday, the attacks were roundly condemned, with some congressional leaders wondering whether the long fight over health care had unleashed an ugly dimension to the modern political discourse.

“If we fail to learn the lessons of our history, we are bound to repeat them,” said House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.). “I think all of us learned some great lessons from the ’60s and ’70s, and there are some lessons that none of us want to repeat, but one thing we know, as Steny Hoyer said, ‘Silence is consent.’ ”

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) called the incidents unacceptable.

“I know many Americans are angry over this health-care bill, and that Washington Democrats just aren’t listening,” Boehner told Fox News Channel. “But, as I’ve said, violence and threats are unacceptable. That’s not the American way. We need to take that anger and channel it into positive change. Call your congressman, go out and register people to vote, go volunteer on a political campaign, make your voice heard — but let’s do it the right way.”

To start with, Boehner is absolutely right. These attacks are unacceptable, and if the perpetrators are caught, they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

However, there are several interesting things that went floating through my head when I read the MSM’s take about these incidents.

First, it’s disturbing that the MSM has automatically shifted into the “all-righties-are-nutjobs” meme. It’s to be expected, of course, but it’s simply wrong, wrong, wrong. The media loves the crazy-right-wingers angle, but rarely do you ever hear about the violence you see regularly on the left side of the aisle. Liberals tend to resort to violence much more often than conservatives do. Conservative bloggers have already started rounding up the evidence to prove this point. Sister Toldjah eviscerates the media and provides several examples of lefty violence. John McCormack notes that not too long ago, Stupak was getting death threats from supporters of the Obamacare bill, not opponents. Newsbusters examines the media’s myth of right-wing violence, and provides more examples of lefty violence — including a liberal who bit off a conservatives finger, Hummer dealerships that were burned down, SEIU union thugs who beat a black conservative man, liberal threats to bomb the 2008 Republican National Convention, and more. Glenn Reynolds also remembers a lot of violence being directed towards conservatives and Republicans here. Remember the bullet-ridden Bush-Cheney headquarters? Vandalized GOP offices? And who can forget the hatred spewed onto conservative women? Michelle Malkin is practically an expert in this category, although she’s by far not alone. Being conservative and having a vagina means that you are worse than Bushitler McChimpyhalliburton to the left. Women are supposed to be liberal, and they’re all supposed to be in love with abortion. Express anything to the contrary, and you must be destroyed — or, at the very least, reduced to a some kind of crude sexual slave to Republican men.

The point of all this is, violence is just as prevalent on the left as it is on the right. At least with conservatives and tea parties, the violent wackos are just a few lone nutjobs that are immediately denounced by practically everyone else in the movement. With liberals, the violence is welcomed and applauded if it’s even mentioned at all. Most of the time, there’s just silence, and there’s never a denunciation of the violence from liberal leaders.

When you think about all of this, can Democrats really afford to make such a big drama out of this? These incidents are wrong, and like I said, the people responsible should be held accountable to the fullest extent. But perhaps Democrats should examine and deal with the amount of violence in their own party before they start looking to condemn the few instances in ours.

There was one other thing that I kept thinking over and over again when I heard about these incidents. The Revolutionary War wasn’t fought for much more than this. The American people are angry — furious, in fact. They’ve been steadily fighting this bill for the past year. They’ve made their voices heard. It couldn’t have been more obvious if it had bit the Democrats on their collective noses. Yet Democrats passed it anyways. They completely ignored the will of the constituents they are elected to serve. Did they really expect that there would be no consequences? Actions bring results, and they aren’t always good. You take an angry populace who is begging you to listen to them, and then do the exact opposite of what they want, and you’re just asking for trouble. It’s to be expected that a few people are going to go off the deep end. And yes, those people should be punished. But come on, Dems — you gotta realize, you reap what you sow. Not too long ago, citizens of the British empire were overtaxed and living under tyranny. It didn’t take much more of a spark to set off a war. Democrats seem to be emulating the British tyranny now. Another revolution isn’t the answer, but like I said — actions have consequences. You cannot trample the rights of the American people without some pushback.

This is a lesson to be learned by Democrats, not by tea partiers or conservatives or Republicans. They wrought this hell upon the country, and eventually, they’re going to have to pay… although hopefully, it will be in a non-violent manner which consists of voting their sorry asses out of office in November.

UPDATE:

I had originally cross-posted this at the Green Room at Hot Air. It was removed because apparently what I wrote comes across like I am condoning the violence and the attacks. I just want to be clear: this is not the message I am trying to convey. I also don’t believe that secession or revolution is the best course of action, and frankly, I get irritated when people talk about it as if it is a viable option. To me, that’s a huge overreaction. Yes, our representatives in Washington are not representing us well. That doesn’t mean that it’s time to overthrow the government. We still have the ability to vote them out in November. When the day comes where we can’t vote out our congressmen or our president, well, then we can talk about the possibility of revolution. Clearly, we are far from that. There were just a few points I was trying to make. One, that Republicans suffer the same violence and vandalism that Democrats do, if not worse. Two, that Democrats were making a mountain out of a molehill. Three, that the Revolutionary War happened because of a tyrannical, oppressive government. The British were sending combat troops into colonial towns and dissolving local governments; militias were established because of this. While our current situation is not nearly as dire, we are being faced with a governing majority — the Democrats — who are marching in lockstep towards tyranny. Fourth and finally, that Democrats have to accept that actions do have consequences. It doesn’t excuse the violence, but it is still the truth. I don’t mean that they deserve it or even should have expected it — simply that they had to realize there would be negative repercussions if they passed Obamacare against the will of the people. I encourage these actions when they are legal — getting involved in tea parties, volunteering with your local GOP, helping register people to vote, calling or writing your congressman, etc. Illegal activities, such as throwing bricks through a window, are WRONG. There is no excuse and the people responsible should be punished. I never intended to convey a different message, which is why I repeated my belief that the offenders should be punished repeatedly throughout the article.

I hope this clears up my intentions and my thoughts in this piece.

ShareThis

The idea is that by securing even a slight adjustment in the language, the Senate will have to send the bill back to the House of Representatives for reconsideration. Drawing out the process makes it more likely for it to be tripped up.

On Tuesday, the GOP put its strategy into action, with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okl.) introducing an amendment beyond agreeable. Titled “No Erectile Dysfunction Drugs To Sex Offenders” it would literally prohibit convicted child molesters, rapists, and sex offenders from getting erectile dysfunction medication from their health care providers.

While it will undoubtedly be difficult for Democrats to vote against the measure (one can conjure up the campaign ads already), the party plans to do just that.

“Democrats in the Senate are very unified that this is not going back to the House,” Sen. Wyden (D-Ore.) told the Huffington Post on Tuesday, minutes before the Coburn amendment was introduced.

“We would know it is a game,” Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) told the Huffington Post. “We would vote against it. It is that simple.”

It’s not just a game. It’s strategy, and it was a brilliant move by Senate Republicans. Think about it: if the reconciliation bill is changed in any way, it has to go back to the House for yet another vote. And the Democrats want this passed right now. However, this amendment puts them in a sticky situation: vote against it, and you’ve just said that you want to give Viagra to kiddie rapists. The campaign ads would practically write themselves.

But think about it. Obamacare is so important to Democrats, that they’ll promote giving erectile dysfunction drugs to sex offenders. It’s insane because, as Allah points out, Democrats think that Obamacare is a huge winner. So why would they be so anxious to get it passed quickly? If an amendment like this comes up, why not just go for it and send it back to the House? What do they have to hide? The no-Viagra-for-rapists amendment would be a sure crowd-pleaser, but Democrats, for some ungodly reason, are coming out against it.

Like I said, this was a brilliant, beautiful strategy executed by Senate Republicans. Way to go, Coburn.

ShareThis

]]> http://www.cassyfiano.com/2010/03/how-far-will-dems-go-for-obamacare/feed 1