Hypocrisy (Warning--Health Care Thread)--updated

2nd Warning:  This is intended as a health-care related thread in which I plan on saying bad things about the Democratic party and expect others to do so as well.  Those who dislike such threads may opt out by using the "back" button on their browser.

I found this article on the web and, in my opinion, it highlights/epitomizes the arrogance and hypocrisy of the Democratic party. 

A few of my favorite quotes (and my related thoughts) are below:

WASHINGTON – Democrats defended plans to push massive health care legislation through the House without a direct vote and Republicans assailed the strategy Tuesday . . . . 

I agreed with the Democrats when they said Bush/Republican use of such strategies was "indefensible" and now they go and do this.

. . . House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said that no final decision had been made on the complex parliamentary strategy, which would allow House Democrats to pass the Senate's health care legislation without voting on the bill itself. Instead House members, who dislike the Senate bill, would vote on a rule for debate that would deem the bill passed once a smaller package of fixes also had passed. . . . 

So . . . they're going to try passing it by voting on something else?  That can't be right.

. . . "We will vote on it in one form or another." . . . 

Apparently it is right.

. . . At the White House, press secretary Robert Gibbs refused to say whether Obama supported the maneuver. . . .

So, the president want's this to pass, but doesn't have the balls to either say "pass it no matter what" or "the end does not justify the means."

. . . "There's going to be a vote on health care reform. You're going to know where people are on health care," Gibbs said. . . . 

But we still won't know where the president is on underhanded strategies related to passing such a bill.

. . . "Anyone who endorses this strategy will be forever remembered for trying to claim they didn't vote for something they did," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said . . . . 

Not a McConnell fan, but he describes the situation pretty accurately.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to shield lawmakers from having to vote directly on the Senate-passed health care bill because it's unpopular with House Democrats.

Aha!  Now we know why they are voting on it this way.  It is a way of voting for something else that only happens to pass the Health Care Bill as a side-effect.  You would think, if the people actually wanted this, that they could just vote on the bill itself.  I can already see future congressional hearings with Democrats making statements like "I didn't support the bill, I just voted for a small package of amendments to it that also happened to pass it" or "hmmm . . . well, I guess it depends on what your definition of 'vote' is."

"Nobody wanted to vote for the Senate bill," Pelosi, D-Calif., explained in a round-table meeting with liberal bloggers Monday.

So, they're going to do something sneaky and assume the public is too stupid to understand what happened?  (If they're right, we deserve whatever happens to health care and the economy.)

Obama has turned up the pressure . . . wooing freshman Democrats in the Oval Office . . . holding . . . sessions . . . that never appeared on his official schedule.

So much for open government.

Edited by Mack - 18 March 2010 at 5:15pm

Hysteria wrote: I skimmed over your post and I'm pretty sure I gathered that you are accusing the Democrats of not being bipartisan and Obama not being open enough about what he is doing.  I mean, I know you're old Mack, but has your senility really erased the eight years before Obama from your mind?  :)

I don't know if people expected Democrats to actually be any better once they had the majority.  I wanted them to, but as Hysteria said, they're politicians.

Frankly, I really think our system needs to change by accepting the fact that it is possible for everyone to vote on issues.

ParielIsBack wrote: I don't know if people expected Democrats to actually be any better once they had the majority.

I was hoping that they would have learned from the mistakes of the Republicans in general and Newt Gingrich in particular.

Mack wrote: ParielIsBack wrote: I don't know if people expected Democrats to actually be any better once they had the majority. I was hoping that they would have learned from the mistakes of the Republicans in general and Newt Gingrich in particular.

I agree.  The key word here was "hope".  It's amazing how similar all politicians are.

It's thier turn after 8 years of "Bush" and Republican bashin.

I love the bumper sticker: I will give your President the same respect you gave mine for 8 years.

'With great power comes great responsibility' is a total fail with the current crop of Democrats. Representitive Republic, means you represent the people and thier wishes, not vote as you personally see fit to CYA under Pelosi, Reid, and Obama.

The current challenge will be the 'forced' contract of the bill, or a fine. Virginia is leading the charge per 10th Amendment, where a 'contract' is voluntary, and any citizen of Virginia charged with a fine for not purchasing a mandatory Federal induced 'contract' will be defended by the state.

The Supreme Court already is preparing for the cases, and the precidents are already in place. When the Feds tried to force a 'contracted'storage of out of state produced industrial waste on NY, NY sued and won since the Federal GOvernment can not force a 'contract'on the unwilling. That 10th Amendment thing will be tough for any bill to overcome as written.

I'm beginning to hate politics. You have partisan wing nuts who believe that the Bush administration was so corrupt as to blatantly commit election fraud, kill thousands of US civilians so they could start a war, rig another election, then bomb levy's in New Orleans to kill black people, and create a secret earthquake machine. Both fringe groups think the other side is so evil that they will tolerate whatever evil their side commits because they feel it is necessary to counter the opposition. Unfortunately our political system is such that you need to be a partisan hack to get elected. I'm not certain that being forced to buy insurance is a terrible idea (I live in MA and our health care laws are very similar to the ones purposed) but this process is disgusting, and the Democrats will pay in November, even if the bill turns out to be a good one. I think we can all agree that we need health care reform (except those who want to adopt a faith-healing system) but considering the political climate, compehensive package deals seem like a bad idea, why not pass tort reform, and pre-existing condition and anti-genetic-discrimination laws seperatly since they could  probably get through. the only real reason for this approach is so on party can take credit/blame for reform and has no bearing on public sentiment or pragmatism. I hope after the dems get hosed in november Obama cleans ouse in his cabinet, as dense as Bush was, he at least got Rummy out. The Chicago crew has to go. I'd like to believe my president isn't a deusche, but he keeps bad company. 

I don't think he committed election fraud.  I do think that the way the Florida ballots were handled was at least wrong, if not actually unconstitutional.

So what was the question he was presumably dodging? How do I know that the article is correct if only know the answer without the question?

Edited by God - 18 March 2010 at 6:04pm