Judd Gregg

I saw Judd Gregg on TV and the dude's got it figured out. Too bad our leadership and the media hasn't.

The alleged "new Republican ideas" in the "new Obama healthcare bill" are a smokescreen.

The alleged "reconciliation sidecar" being offered to the pro-life  Democrats is also a smokescreen.

The bottom line is that the Obama Administration wants a health bill--any health bill--to pass both houses so they can sign it.

And the only bill in town is the Senate passed health bill. And since Scott Brown means any new bill gets filibustered, that's the only bill Obama can sign. A new bill--even if it passed the House--would never get to the Senate floor.

On March 18, 2010. Nancy Pelosi is going to being the Senate bill to the House floor and use every tactic known to politics to grind out a one vote victory. And then the bill crossed the goal line.  Why would the Obama camp seek any more health care votes? They would have what they want already

But that means that on March 18, 2010 every House Democrat is going to be asked to vote in favor of all the bribes in the Senate bill.  To say yes to Obamacare every House member will have to vote yes on the Louisiana Purchase of Mary Landrieu.

A vote by the House for Obamacare makes the Cornhusker Kickback of Ben Nelson the law of the land.

This makes the Senate bill even worse than the House bill; which as best as we know, did not contain material gratutities for specific members.   This vote will require every member of the House who votes "aye" to affirmatively endorse the corrupt practices used to pass the bill in the Senate.

Remember---they can't change the Senate bill and get it signed. It has to be voted on as an unamended bill with all the bribes included.

Sure, they'll be some bill proposed to remove the bribes we know about. How did "I voted for it before I voted against it" work out for President Kerry? That's going to be what the members of the House are going to be left with as a defense for their actions.

When the Democrats want to talk about what ISN'T in the bill they plan to vote on, that means that they have no excuse for the crap in the crap sandwich they expect their members to swallow hard and vote for without retching.

The Republican and conservative message machine is taking the bait from the Obama camp by discussing the fig leaf of suggested changes and the illusory prospect of reconciliation. Senator Gregg is right. Once they score they will stop playing the game.

The better issue--and the one we ought to spend the next two weeks pounding home--is that a vote for health care reform is a vote for the corrupt process that created it.

America has no confidence in the present Congress to act honorably in the public interest. It's time the charade ended and a bipartisan housecleaning occur so the stench enveloping the Capitol abates before more legislative grandiosity gets attempted.

Statists are nothing if not consistent and predictable. Obama is counting on his grandstand showpiece on Thursday to gin up enough support to allow passage of this monstrous, unsustainable TAX bill through reconciliation. Despite promises of open debate and transparency in the development of the health care bill, President Obama and his leftist Congress cronies have gone about the legislation like a meeting of the forty thieves in a cave somewhere.

Thursday’s meeting is already shaping up to be a barn burner, with Obama sure to be at his arrogant high-handed best since he, Reid and Pelosi have been unable to pass health care due to (on the House side) an inability to hold together the votes required for final passage and (on the Senate side) no longer holding the required majority vote.

Desperate for a success, the Democrats are falling back on their legislative version of a scorched earth policy. Obama’s plan has been to meld the House and Senate versions of the bill and add a range of draconian measures of his own. Republicans can be expected to be highly resistant to Obama’s intimidation tactics at the ‘health care summit’ on Thursday.

The Republican leadership has already stated that it may have found a loophole in the budget reconciliation process that would allow them to introduce an infinite number of amendments to the bill. Experts on Senate procedural rules from both parties have said such a filibuster is possible. While reconciliation rules limit debate to 20 hours, Senators lack constraints and could conceivably continue offering them up until 60 members agree to cut the process off.

Senator Jim DeMint

Republican Senator Jim De Mint (S.C.) said that using reconciliation rules to pass the house-requested changes to the health care bill is “tyrannical”. “I think you’ll see us offering amendments to get us into November if we can”, said De Mint. Senator Judd Greg, the leading Republican on the Budget Committee said, “You could continue to offer amendments, I suspect. You can offer an unlimited number of amendments after time has elapsed, so it’s logical that you could do it on reconciliation”.

Republicans are doing just what we want them to do. As long as we don’t have any defections, such as Olympia Snowe, we stand a good chance of beating this legislation. It is important that you continue to contact your Senators and Representatives to let them know we won’t stand for the Democrats Marxist tactics.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2010

Podcast Show Notes

Senator Gregg steps aside as Obama's Commerce Secretary.

Lobbyists get copy of stimulus before congress. (Hat Tip: Campaign Spot.)

Stimulating the economy with golf carts. (Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin.)

The real cost of the generational theft act: $3.27 Trillion.

Blue Dog who opposed faux stimulus faces primary challenge.

National Republican Trust declares war on GOP supports of Inter-generational debt bill.

Obama's big whup tax credit.

67% of Americans think they could do better than Congress-they're right. (Hat Tip: Don Surber.)

House Democrats vote to keep tax cheat Charlie Rangel in charge of the Ways and Means Committee while he's under investigation.

Culture of corruption: lobbying firm with big ties to John Murtha investigated for potential fraudulent campaign contributions. (Hat Tip: Hot Air.)

Democrats want the fairness doctrine back despite the President's promises during the campaign.

Click here to download, click here to add this podcast to your Itunes.

IMPORTANT: Please take our listener survey

I really don't know quite what to make of this breaking news story

Gregg withdraws as commerce secretary nominee

but it certainly does not paint New England Republicans in a good light (good thing I was born in Brooklyn, ;) )

I also don;t know where this leaves us for the 2010 election in NH. Will Gregg return as a candidate, or an embarassed lame duck?

And I'm also not sure who look worse after all is said and done--Obama's incompetent vetters or Mitch McConnell's inept management of the senate minority? One hopes for the Republic's sake it will be the former, but who knows?

It is very clear what President Obama is trying to do with Judd Gregg: get a filibuster proof majority not through an election but through the President's virtually uncontested power of appointment. And if not with a Democrat, get it de facto through a Lincoln Chafee-style Republican hand-picked by the Democratic Governor. This is not about bipartisanship, but an audacious, and I would say impressive, game of political hardball.

Republicans should be prepared to play hardball in return.

First, we must frame this as an astonishing partisan power grab. President Bush had the opportunity to nominate Louisiana Democrat John Breaux as Energy Secretary in 2001, thus flipping the seat, but didn't -- leaving the Senate at 50-50 and vulnerable to a Democratic takeover, which as we all know, actually happened.

Second, we need to insist not only that Gov. Lynch appoint a Republican, but that he appoint a Republican from a list of three candidates prepared by Republican leaders in the legislature and the New Hampshire Republican Party -- preferably a strong Republican who would run in 2010. Gregg was about as conservative as you get for New England, and any replacement selected by a Democrat is almost guaranteed to be worse.

This is not unprecedented. Wyoming law required the Democratic governor pick from a Republican-prepared list of Senate candidates in 2007. Given the extraordinary nature of this appointment, Democrats should have no problem agreeing to the simple request that Republicans have a voice in choosing New Hampshire's Republican Senator.

As I've implied in this YouTube question to the RNC candidates, the ideological composition of our conferences on the Hill should matter to party leaders. It's not that we shouldn't be running candidates well-suited to their states and districts, including moderates -- I would be happy with another Susan Collins from New Hampshire, as that's probably the best-case scenario. It's that we should recognize that Lincoln Chafees are not simply another vote for organizing the Senate the right way, but that they are 60-80% of a Democrat on key policy issues.

We are going down the Lincoln Chafee route in New Hampshire by agreeing to any appointment of a Republican by a Democrat, instead of insisting on Republican participation in the process. If so, this shows we have learned very little as a party these last 3 years.