Tag Archives: political parties

Progressive Racism, Part…Another

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D, WV) had this to say, while in a carefully nearly empty Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation committee hearing and with (equally carefully) only a single Republican present:

I think it’s very important to take a long view at what’s going on here. I’ll be able to dig up some e-mails that make part of the Affordable Care Act that doesn’t look good, especially from people who’ve made up their mind that they don’t want it to work, because they don’t like the president—maybe he’s the wrong color, something of that sort.

I’ve seen a lot of that, and I know a lot of that to be true….

Of course, Rockefeller, with equal care, has chosen not to produce any of those emails, and he has chosen, again with equal care, to produce none of what he claims to have seen.

In the end, only a racist will manufacture a racist complaint where there is no racism involved. Especially when he knows there is no racism is involved, but merely is desperate to change the subject away from the myriad Progressive failures in the Senate.

Democrats and the Benghazi Investigation

Posted on by
2

I’ve written elsewhere about the troubling nature of the Democrats’ reluctance to actively investigate the Benghazi failure.

Now, after weeks of publicly professed angst, the Democrats have agreed to appoint members to the House Select Committee whose express purpose is to investigate that mess.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) named her members while insisting that

Democrats’ participation was the only way to assure Americans of a “fair process.”

She also claimed that Democrats must participate in order

to make [the investigation] a “fair process” and to bring “openness and transparency” to the investigation.

Elijah Cummings (D, MD), the Ranking Democrat on the Select Committee, added this:

I believe we need someone in the room to simply defend the truth.

With the Democrats approaching this insisting that Republicans are fundamentally dishonest, though, how will it be possible to trust the Democrats’ objectivity, and their own integrity, as they pretend to carry out their responsibilities on this committee and during this investigation?

Oh, and Congressman Pelosi: you keep using this term “openness and transparency.” I do not think it means what you think it means.

ER Visits Up with the Advent of Obamacare

Posted on by
Reply

Stephanie Armour and Louise Radnofsky pointed this out earlier in the week in The Wall Street Journal.

Among other things, they mentioned

The median ER charge was more than $1,200 for the most frequent outpatient diagnoses in a study of over 8,000 ER visits in 2006-08….

This is right before Obamacare was enacted.

Notice that ER charge. A significant fraction of the deductibles on Obamacare health coverage plans is larger than that—ranging from $2,000 to above $10,000, depending on family size, the specific plan selected, and so on.

Since the ER charge is less than the deductible, even if these ER patients had an Obamacare plan, where is their incentive to see a doctor in his office? He’s still paying those $1,200 out of his pocket. The proud possession of a health plan is irrelevant to that.

Who Can’t Handle the Truth?

Posted on by
1

Democrats, controlling the Senate, blocked efforts to join the House investigation of the Benghazi fiasco.

Democratic Senator Bob Menendez (D, NJ) objected, saying the probe is politically motivated and without merit.

Of course, blocking Senate participation in a joint investigation isn’t at all politically motivated or meritless.

If this thing truly is mere politics, why not join in, with enthusiasm? Why not push for full release of unredacted documents and emails and etc from State, DoD, and the White House? Why not expose all of these to the light of day and to the eyes of Americans? If there really is no there there, that will become painfully obvious, in short order, to the Republicans’ severe damage.

Of what, then, are the Democrats so afraid? That there is a significant there there?

Taking Their Cue from Wisconsin and Indiana

Posted on by
Reply

Congressman Adam Schiff (D, CA), during an interview on Fox News Sunday, said his party should boycott the House Special Committee being set up to investigate the Benghazi failure and the subsequent stonewalling by the Obama administration and Democrats in the House and Senate. Insisting on knowing the facts of this failure and the associated deaths of four Americans, along with the facts of the coverup, is just election year politicking as far as he’s concerned.

Sure.

The Democrats are looking to cut and run when they can’t get their way. Only, unlike their Party mentors in Wisconsin and Indiana (and the Federal Senate, come to that), this gang won’t be able to shut down the government with their refusal to be a part of democracy. They’ll just expose themselves as spoiled, arrogant brats.

Schiff also carefully elides the simple fact that if President Barack Obama, and Democrats generally (including Schiff), had not stonewalled and outright obstructed the Oversight Committees’ (yes, including the Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs, the Democratic leadership of which closed their collective eyes to the matter and refused even to look at it) investigation of the Benghazi failure these past two years, there would be no opportunity for election year politicking with it.

Update: Speaker John Boehner (R, OH) has laid out the structure of the Special Committee–it’ll have 7 Republicans and 5 Democrats, should the latter deign participate.  Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) had held out for an even split of 6 Republicans and 6 Democrats, perhaps setting up an excuse for the Democrats to cut and run again–the committee wouldn’t be “bipartisan” enough to suit her.  This, of course, also contradicts then-Speaker Pelosi’s construction of her 2007 Special Committee on Global Warming, which she carefully stacked at 9 Democrats and 6 Republicans on that early iteration of climate panic-mongering.