nancy pelosi – Page 9

Page 602 and counting on the Democratic health care rationing bill…

…at least, I would be if I was daft enough to take seriously Speaker Pelosi’s suggestion that you can take a 1,900 page bill and understand it in 72 hours. Fortunately, neither did the NRCC – which is why they’ve come up with this handy pacing clock. a page every two minutes, folks. Every page of which references/rescinds/alters a bunch of other laws, which probably themselves reference/rescind/alter a bunch of laws in their turn. With no breaks for three days.

Excuse me: it’s now page 603. By the time I get this published, page 604. And I’m reasonably certain that most of the Democratic legislators that put this monstrosity together haven’t made it past the table of contents, at that.

Moe Lane

PS: And it’s not even as if Reid’s eager to go with health care rationing this year, at this rate.

PPS: Reminder: the GOP is having a twelve-hour online town hall on health care tomorrow, starting at 1 EST.

PPPS: 606 pages. And counting. Goes quicker than you thought, doesn’t it?

Crossposted to RedState.

Rasmussen: 54/42 against Pelosi’s health care rationing bill.

Give House Democrats credit: their latest version of the health care rationing bill actually moved the numbers a little. Just not in the way that they hoped.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi introduced the House version of health care reform legislation last week, but most voters are still opposed to the effort.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 42% now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s down from 45% a week ago but unchanged from two weeks ago.

Much obliged; the drop in support from the last time the Democrats unveiled a version of health care rationing was starting to abate, so having this handy reminder of who’s running Congress these days – and the implications – is really, really handy. Some people might quibble that if Democrats wanted to be really helpful they’d have scheduled their latest announcement last Saturday, but I’m not greedy. This will do nicely for tomorrow’s races.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to RedState.

Nancy Pelosi’s non-tort reform.

Jen Rubin:

Remember Obama’s effort to try a “test” for tort reform? (We don’t actually need a test, since it has worked to lower medical malpractice coverage and help increase access to doctors in states that have tried it.) Well, Pelosi’s bill has an anti-tort-reform measure. On pages 1431-1433 of the 1990 spellbinder, there is a financial incentive for states to try “alternative medical liability laws.” But look — you don’t get the incentive if you have a law that would “limit attorneys’ fees or impose caps on damages.”

See Hot Air for more, including a link to the actual language and a reminder that the Democrats never had any intention of doing anything at all to disconcert trial lawyers. Which is the point that I’d like to hammer home, here: there is no reason to be surprised at this. We knew back in August that something like this was going to happen; and this is precisely the sort of political doubletalk that the people opposing the Democrats’ health care rationing bill have come to expect from the current ruling party.

So. To any random Democrats reading this: when Nancy Pelosi looks you in the eye and tells you that the new health care bill addresses tort reform, she is lying to you. Because she thinks that you are stupid.

She. Thinks. That. You. Are. Stupid.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to RedState.

And here’s confirmation that the Speaker is banning public access.

I just got tipped on this:

(Background: the Speaker of the House is holding a press conference on the Democrats’ health care rationing bill, and shutting out the public. This video shows security confirming that the restrictions comes from the Speaker’s office.)

The utter arrogance of the Democratic party leadership is only matched by their utter ignorance of the realities of modern communication technology.

Speaker Pelosi, Senator Reid and the Bad Touch.

(Via @CalebHowe) If you still need it confirmed that Senator Reid lacks any ability to function in the outside world, you can see it here, in eighteen seconds.

Madame Speaker, we have had our differences in the past: but if in the future you ever feel the need to knee Senator Reid in the testicles for touching you when you don’t want to be touched, well, I promise not to rake you over the coals for it. I might critique your execution, but it’d be meant constructively.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to RedState.

Clearly, Nancy Pelosi is a New York Times reader…

…because she hadn’t a clue about the Senate ACORN defunding amendment. Note that the New York Post is a little more forceful than me; they called Speaker Pelosi ‘clueless.’ Which is not actually unfair of them: keeping track of things like this is part of the Speaker of the House’s job.

Then again, so is paying attention to what happens on the House floor.

(Via JammieWearingFool, via Instapundit)

Crossposted to RedState.

Apparently Rep. Anna Eschoo (D*, CA) has a different definition…

…of ‘courageous stand‘ than I, and probably you, do:

Pelosi’s silence on [PMA-linked Rep. Pete] Visclosky [D*, IN] has been deafening considering how quickly she moved to strip committee memberships from the last member of her brood to become the target of a federal investigation, former congressman Jefferson. Rep. Anna Eschoo, a California Democrat and one of Pelosi’s closest friends on the Hill, argues that the evidence that the feds found in Jefferson’s house — $90,000 in cash stuffed in a freezer – was so damning, “the situation was completely different and Nancy took a courageous stand.”

Getting back to the Visclosky matter: the article suggests that Pelosi’s waiting for the Ethics committee to rule on this particular Congressman (not to mention, both Rangel [D*, NY] & Murtha [D*, PA]) before she gets involved further. Which is another way of saying that she’s waiting for the inevitable whitewash before going through the formality of declaring the issue done and buried; expecting a Democratic-controlled panel to seriously inconvenience three senior Democratic legislators is pretty much silly.

This would bug me more, except that the PMA matter is in the hands of the FBI – which means that Madame Speaker doesn’t actually have the power to squash this problem. Although it would be amusing to see her try.

Moe Lane

*Naturally.

Crossposted to RedState.

Where it went wrong: Obama and Congress.

For the benefit of any hypothetical researcher from, say, the 2050s or so – hey, how are you folks doing, up there? Have the Cubs won a World Series yet? – let me just note the two major mistakes that the current administration made that seem to have seriously complicated the passage of their health care rationing bill.

Choosing Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s approach on the ‘stimulus’ over that of Rep Walter Minnick’s;
Allowing Speaker Pelosi to replace John Dingell on Energy with Henry Waxman.

Continue reading Where it went wrong: Obama and Congress.

The confessed un-Americanism of SEIU.

By the Speaker’s own words, no less.

Ah, the problems with message discipline. Specifically: the problems with having the current Speaker of the House write things like “Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American” without checking to see first whether her minions over at SEIU are advocating doing precisely that:

Action: Opponents of reform are organizing counter-demonstrators to speak at this and several congressional town halls on the issue to defend the status quo. It is critical that our members with real, personal stories about the need for access to quality, affordable care come out in strong numbers to drown out their voices.

All via @JTlol and Perfunction: the latter has a few more of SEIU’s confessions of un-American behavior.

The above link is to Mary Katharine Ham, as SEIU’s MiniTruth has already memory-holed the offending thoughtcrime. Although there was no reason to bother, given that there is of course a screenshot. These people keep making the most boneheaded mistakes; you might be forgiven for getting the impression that the vaunted power and reach of the progressive activist movement is mostly due to having no real opposition up to this point…

Moe Lane

Crossposted to RedState.

We’re not the ones sending out the blueshirts, Nancy.

(Via RS Diarist rechief) Turns out that the Drudge rumor was right: Pelosi & Hoyer really did write an op-ed with the title ‘Un-American’ attacks can’t derail health care debate. And it’s precisely what I expected, too. Which is to say, an op-ed that can write this:

Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.

…without even a hint of a sign of a suggestion that the authors mean by that condemnation the physical violence done to conservatives by SEIU members (noted here and here). Which is actually not surprising: they don’t. It’s them that are doing it, so it’s by definition OK. And if you don’t like that observation of mine, then the Democratic party’s leadership is perfectly welcome to prove me wrong by issuing a terse statement saying that they do not support SEIU’s violent tactics. Until then, they can own the actions of their blueshirts. Continue reading We’re not the ones sending out the blueshirts, *Nancy*.