Archive for the ‘Pelosi’ Category
Betsy McCaughey’s post is a great starting point to discuss the Left’s dishonesty:
“Really, we should be afraid of this court,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 30 Hobby Lobby ruling.
What the Supreme Court ruled, if it’s distilled to its core, is say that female employees at Hobby Lobby have to pay for their own birth control if they want to use 4 types of birth control that are called abortifacients. The decision didn’t make any form of birth control illegal, though that’ what Nancy Pelosi and Patty Murray are lying through their teeth to make you think that:
Sen. Patty Murray announced, “After five justices decided last week that an employer’s personal views can interfere with a woman’s access to essential health services, we in Congress need to act quickly to right this wrong.”
Here’s Ms. McCaughey’s reply to Sen. Murray’s diatribe:
Another whopper. Nothing in Hobby Lobby gives employers control over a woman’s birth control choices. The Green family, owners of Hobby Lobby and a related chain of Christian bookstores, objected to paying for four types of birth control that their religious teachings consider abortifacients. Their health plan covers 16 of the 20 types mandated by the Obama administration’s insurance regulations. The Court ruled that Hobby Lobby is protected by the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act of 1993 and doesn’t have to pay for the other four products. But women can still choose to use them.
I’d argue that, though RFRA was cited in Justice Alito’s opinion, Hobby Lobby was protected by the First Amendment. Government doesn’t have the right to force people to ignore their religious beliefs.
As a sidenote, I’d question the left’s argument that corporation aren’t protected by the First Amendment. That’s a silly argument. Should a sole propietorship be forced to violate their deeply held religious beliefs? Should limited partnerships be forced to violate their deeply held religious beliefs? Should 10 women who formed an LLC be forced to violate their deeply held religious beliefs?
The question that Ms. Pelosi and Sen. Murray won’t answer is if a LLC with 2 shareholders should be exempted but LLCs with 10 shareholders should be forced into abandoning their deeply held religious beliefs. Pelosi’s and Murray’s opinions are intellectually flimsy, both from a moral standpoint and from a legal standpoint.
That isn’t surprising because the hardline left is as intellectually dishonest as they are morally bankrupt.
A few days ago, Nancy Pelosi spoke about the VA crisis in a dishonest way. Here’s the video showing Ms. Pelosi’s dishonesty:
Here’s what she said that’s infuriating:
Maybe when we go into war, we should be thinking about its consequences and its ramifications. You would think that would be a given. But maybe, it wasn’t and so we go into a war in Iraq and Afghanistan and we leave Afghanistan for Iraq with unfinished business in Afghanistan. Ten years later, we have all these additional veterans.
This is the latest Democrat chanting point. Predictably, it’s dishonest. Ed Morrissey’s post highlights something Chairman Jeff Miller said in last night’s hearing:
‘Why have you not told this committee yet who was disciplined in Augusta, Georgia and Columbia, South Carolina, where nine veterans died because they were on a waiting list for colonoscopies?’ [Rep. Jeff] Miller asked [Mooney].
The fact that 9 vets died while waiting for colonoscopies is telling. That’s because a doctor wouldn’t order a colonoscopy to diagnose whether a vet is suffering from PTSD. What makes sense of the colonoscopies is that it sounds like the type of test that veterans from the Vietnam War or Operation Desert Storm would receive once every 5-10 years because they’re Baby Boomers.
Baby Boomers require more care as they age. According to Kim Strassel of the WSJ, the vast majority of the costs for VA hospitals is for treating Baby Boomers as they get to that age when they get treated more often.
It’s apparent that Ms. Pelosi’s diatribe was an attempt to deflect attention away from the VA system’s failures by talking about Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s intentional misdirection and it’s shameful.
The truth is that Gen. Shinseki and his executive staff didn’t pay attention to the problem. Ed’s questions are the right questions:
What’s missing? Accountability. There isn’t one word of explanation about what Shinseki has done over the last five and a half years since taking over the Department of Veteran Affairs to prevent this kind of systemic fraud and widespread collapse, even after having his budget increased by 78% during his tenure by Congress. In the past six budget cycles, Shinseki has received $235 billion in extra funding over the FY2008 baseline for the VA budget. Where did the money go? What has Shinseki been doing for the past five-plus years? He writes this essay as if he’d just landed on the job, not as if he’d been in charge all along.
Call Shinseki’s stunt the ‘Obama Gambit’ in honor of the man who’s pretended that he’s never been president.
This administration has been in charge for almost 6 years. They’re still acting like they’re going through the transition from the Bush administration. The cabinet posts have been filled for 5+ years but nobody’s done a thing. Hillary didn’t get urgent cables from the ambassador serving in a dangerous part of the world. President Obama didn’t know about the IRS scandal until he read about it in the newspaper. Apparently, Gen. Shinseki didn’t know about this VA crisis until the Phoenix whistleblower stepped to the microphone.
It’s like a baseball manager filling out a lineup card, then not sending the players onto the field. This administration won’t make decisions. They’re more pontificators than administrators.
The VA crisis is the predictable outcome from an administration that specializes in talking, not doing.
The select committee tasked with finding out what happened in Benghazi is an intellectual mismatch. On one side, you’ve got MSNBC’s Chuck Todd, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Adam Schiff, (D-Calif.) On the other side is Rep. Trey Gowdy, (R-SC). While it’s a mismatch in terms of intellectual heft, it wouldn’t improve if the sides were evenly matched. Chairman Gowdy would still win the debate.
Make no mistake about this. Chuck Todd didn’t attempt to hide his bias:
CHUCK TODD: Congressman Gowdy, you’ve heard that Nancy Pelosi would like it to be an even number on the select committee. Obviously some Democrats are even talking about boycotting it. But if you’ve got the House Democratic leader already willing to negotiate on the size of the committee, why not take her up on it? Why not–doesn’t it help the credibility of your investigation if it is truly an even split between the two parties?
TREY GOWDY: Well Chuck, do you challenge the credibility of the Senate Judiciary Committee because it’s certainly not evenly split? Neither is the House Judiciary.
TODD: Well this is different though. This is a select committee and select committees are different. Look I know what the previous history is. I understand that, but my point is–don’t you want to — this has a whiff of politics to it. To some people more than a whiff. Don’t you agree that if you accept her terms you actually get more credibility, which I assume is something you’d want.
It’s sad that Todd bought into Ms. Pelosi’s gimmick, though it isn’t surprising. Democrats will consistently criticize the work of this committee because they want people distracted from the fact that
President Obama and Hillary Clinton couldn’t be found while the terrorist attack was happening. Democrats certainly don’t want people to notice that the Obama administration didn’t properly deploy the military prior to the anniversary of 9/11.
Finally, Democrats can’t afford to have it get out that President Obama and Secretary Clinton ignored Christopher Stevens’ urgent cables asking for more security. If people notice that, they’ll know that Hillary isn’t qualified to be the next commander-in-chief.
The early signals from Chairman Gowdy indicate that there won’t be lots of open hearings for the committee. Instead, it sounds like the committee’s work will focus on getting important documents from the administration, then deposing witnesses based on the information they get from the administration.
I’m betting that most of the reporters covering Chairman Gowdy’s press conference could answer Chairman Gowdy’s questions:
Chairman Gowdy’s last statement has some bite to it. The media deserve every bit of it.
Kirsten Powers column is devastating to Democrats attempting to paint the Republicans’ investigation into the Benghazi terrorist attack:
“Diversion, subterfuge, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. …Why aren’t we talking about something else?” House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi complained last week.
Here’s why: An e-mail has surfaced from a deputy national security adviser to Susan Rice on how to characterize the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on Sunday news programs. He advised Rice, then ambassador to the U.N., that her primary goal was to “underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” The e-mail was redacted when the most-transparent-administration-in-history provided Benghazi documents to Congress earlier, but was found through a Freedom of Information Act request.
Democrats have criticized the Benghazi investigation because it’s been a disaster from start to finish. There isn’t a part of this story that casts President Obama or Hillary Clinton in a positive light.
First, the State Department looks terrible because they ignored Ambassador Christopher Stevens’ repeated requests for additional security in Benghazi. This wasn’t a systemic failure, as the Accountability Review Board’s report said. This disaster happened because Hillary Clinton’s leadership was missing throughout this disaster.
Next, the Obama administration’s national security team looks terrible because they didn’t pre-position the military so they could’ve responded to terrorist attacks, which they knew were imminent.
Third, the Obama administration’s political team looks terrible because Ben Rhodes’ email highlights the fact that their first priority was hiding the disaster. Their first priority wasn’t to admit that theirajor mistake got 4 American patriots needlessly murdered.
Fourth, the “most-transparent-administration-in-history” kept lying for weeks after the initial pre-planned terrorist attack.
Democrats are furious that the House will hold a vote to create a select committee to investigate the administration’s response to the attack in Libya that left four Americans dead. They know this won’t end well.
That’s the understatement of the year.
Last week, Fox News’ Bret Baier asked former national security spokesman Tommy Vietor how the administration came up with its video tale. Vietor replied that there were “guys quoted in newspapers saying (the video is why) they were there.” So much for operating on the best intelligence.
D-u-u-u-d-e, that’s too much BS. That flimsy story shouldn’t be believed.
White House officials brought this House investigation on themselves. They could have avoided it by simply telling the truth. Unfortunately, that was too much to ask.
Dishonest people deserve to be investigated when their actions get people killed.
Technorati: House Select Committee, Investigations, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, President Obama, Tommy Vietor, Susan Rice, Accountability, National Security, Benghazi Terrorist Attack, Accountability Review Board, Democrats, Election 2012, Election 2016
Over the past few years, we’ve seen the Democratic Party crank up their smear machine. This week, Nancy Pelosi said something stunning. Here’s what she said:
PELOSI: I asked a Republican friend why his party remains so opposed to extending the lifelines to struggling families and hungry children. This colleague’s response was telling in its blunt nature and it’s stunning in its honesty. What he said was that, to the Republican Caucus, these people are invisible and the Republican Caucus is indifferent to them.
Greta played that disgustingly dishonest diatribe during her interview with Sean Hannity. This video is instructive to Republicans:
This isn’t the first time a Democrat lied about an anonymous Republican who had the dirt on another Republican. During the 2012 presidential campaign, Harry Reid said he had proof that Mitt Romney hadn’t paid income taxes for the last 10 years. Of course, he didn’t offer proof of his accusation. Most Republicans still think that Harry Reid was simply lying through his teeth.
When it comes to dirty politicking, Democrats don’t hesitate in lying through their teeth. When Harry Reid lied through his teeth during the presidential election, I didn’t question Reid’s honesty. I knew he was a liar. I’m not questioning Pelosi’s honesty now. I don’t have to because it’s apparent that she’s lying. What’s troubling about Pelosi’s statement is that it’s proof that lies roll off her lips effortlessly.
This isn’t the first time she’s been caught lying. Let’s remember that she said with a straight face that unemployment checks help grow the economy. Nobody’s that stupid. Let’s remember that she’s the liar that insisted she hadn’t been briefed about the Bush administration’s waterboarding of high value target terrorists. Then there’s Pelosi’s insistence that the Catholic church’s position on human life only started 50 years ago and doesn’t impact abortion in any case.
The best way to determine if she’s lying is by determining whether her lips are moving. If they’re moving, it’s almost certain that she’s lying.
While Greta interviewed Sean Hannity tonight, Greta told Sean that he’d taken Pelosi’s bait before asking why he’d respond to Pelosi’s lies. At first, I sided with Greta on this. Then Hannity talked about the amount of lies coming from Democrats. I still don’t agree with how Hannity responded but I don’t entirely agree with Greta either.
I agree with Greta that Hannity shouldn’t respond with a statistical argument. That being said, I agree with Hannity that Republicans can’t just pretend Pelosi’s lies don’t exist. My point is that Republicans have to respond to Pelosi’s lies by going on offense. Start with highlighting the fact that Democrats will say anything if they think it’ll change a few votes. Highlight the fact that this isn’t the first time Ms. Pelosi got caught lying by citing the other times she’s told outright whoppers. In this instance, I’d fight Ms. Pelosi’s lies by questioning who this Republican friend is. Next, I’d ask why she called this Republican a “colleague.” Does that mean this alleged Republican is a member of the House of Representatives?
If she’s unwilling to provide the details, I’d then go on Greta’s show and say that I’d questioned Ms. Pelosi about who would say such a despicable thing but that she wouldn’t identify this alleged Republican friend of Ms. Pelosi’s. Finally, I’d state that I’m highly skeptical of her allegations, followed by the fact that I think she’s lying.
This NYTimes article lowers the boom on vulnerable Democrats. Meanwhile, this video will certainly pop up in campaign ads this fall after CBO’s announcement:
Here’s the devastating part of the CBO’s announcement:
A new analysis from the Congressional Budget Office says that the Affordable Care Act will result in more than 2 million fewer full-time workers in the next several years, providing Republican opponents of the law a powerful political weapon leading up to this year’s midterm elections.
The law is also expected to have a significant effect on hours worked, the nonpartisan budget office said in a regular update to its budget projections released Tuesday. With the expansion of insurance coverage, more workers will choose not to work and others will choose to work fewer hours than they might have otherwise, it said. The decline in hours worked will translate into a loss of the equivalent of 2.5 million full-time positions by 2024, the budget office said.
The administration’s spin on this report was disastrous. One of the talking points sounded like the reduction in hours would let people cut their hours to keep their subsidies. The administration then suggested that those people will be able to pursue more creative activities. What they didn’t say is that other families would get hit with paying those subsidies.
The simple fact is that the Anything But Affordable Care Act is a job-destroying disaster. The administration will attempt to suggest otherwise but that’s pure spin. The proof is in the monthly jobs reports, most of which have been disasters.
What isn’t getting reported enough is that the subsidies cover the health insurance premiums but they don’t subsidize those policies’ high deductibles. In most of the policies sold, those deductibles are enough to bury families in debt.
What that means is that the Anything But Affordable Care Act a) is expensive, b) is a job-killer and c) will devastate Democrats next November.
Glenn Reynolds’ latest USA Today column highlights why the Anything But Affordable Care Act, aka the ABACA, is destined for failure:
In his excellent book, Two Cheers For Anarchism, Professor James Scott writes:
One need not have an actual conspiracy to achieve the practical effects of a conspiracy. More regimes have been brought, piecemeal, to their knees by what was once called ‘Irish Democracy,’ the silent, dogged resistance, withdrawal, and truculence of millions of ordinary people, than by revolutionary vanguards or rioting mobs.
Simply put, people, making decisions based on their own self-interests, are saying no to the ABACA. They’re saying no because it’s a rip-off. It’s a rip-off because it was designed by politicians, whose highest priority was passing a bill, not cutting families’ health care costs.
While the political class worries about ‘the art of the possible’, families worry about doing what’s right for their families. The fact is that politicians ignored their constituents when they wrote this bill in Harry Reid’s and Nancy Pelosi’s offices. By making this federal legislation, President Obama eliminated the states’ experimentation, which is the strength of the US’s federalist system.
Top-down, government-centric systems don’t work because they implement a system that isn’t individualized. Does anyone think that a nation that loves its iPhones and individualized apps would accept a system where their health insurance and health care choices are made for them?
It’s possible that something called the Affordable Care Act will still be in place a decade from now. If it still exists, which isn’t guaranteed, it won’t look anything like the system that’s currently in place.
That’s because Americans aren’t satisfied with accepting conventional wisdom. When we see difficulties, our initial instinct is to fix them.
Now, as February draws near, things don’t look much better. Far fewer than half the number needed by March 31 have signed up. And, as it turns out, most of the people signing up for Obamacare aren’t the uninsured for whom it was supposedly enacted, but people who were previously insured (many of whom lost their previous insurance because of Obamacare’s new requirements). “At most,” writes Bloomberg’s Megan McArdle, “they’ve signed up 15% of the uninsured that they were expecting to enroll. … Where are the uninsured? Did hardly any of them want coverage beginning Jan. 1?” It looks that way.
Based on public sentiment, this would’ve been the right time to let a good crisis go to waste. It’s pretty apparent that the people are speaking with a loud, passionate voice that they want this system scrapped. They aren’t sending mixed signals on this. They aren’t sounding an uncertain alarm. They’re saying that a) they don’t want to return to the previous system and b) they’re rejecting President Obama’s top-down system.
What they’re saying with exceptional clarity is that they want to design a system that a) puts them first, b) puts doctors, not politicians and bureaucrats, in charge of the health care system, c) lowers health care costs and d) lets them create their own network of health care providers.
The Anything But Affordable Care Act is 0-for-4 on those merits. That’s why it’s destined for failure.
This editorial includes the usual collection of straw man arguments, which I’m about to deconstruct. This paragraph is especially worth demolishing:
The individual mandate was a Republican idea as well as set forth by the conservative Heritage Foundation in 1989. It was supported by Republican Sens. Orrin Hatch and Chuck Grassley who also introduced bills promoting this legislation. Newt Gingrich was also for this idea.
There’s no disputing the information in that paragraph. These senators supported the Heritage Foundation’s idea. What’s important, though, was that people started making the argument that the individual mandate wasn’t constitutional in the early 1990s. That’s when Republicans, generally speaking, stopped supporting the individual mandate.
Now all these individuals oppose the ACA because it is Obama’s and the Democrats’ signature piece of legislation.
What a stupid statement to make. First, it’s pure projection. There’s no proof of that. Allegations aren’t proof. Allegations is the writer has. Argument? Dismissed as foolish. Second, Sen. Grassley and Sen. Hatch oppose the Affordable Care Act because, in the words of Sen. Baucus, it’s “a train wreck” happening in slow motion right before our eyes.
The Democrats’ arguments are built on the shaking sand arguments that the ACA is working fine or will soon be working fine and that the policies bought through the ACA’s exchanges will be significantly better than the policies families had prior to implementation of the ACA. That’s demonstrably false. Networks have shrunk. Premiums are significantly higher. Facilities that offer cutting edge medical treatment are either being excluded from the exchanges or they’re opting out because the reimbursement rates will drive them into bankruptcy.
Those are legitimate explanations for why Republicans oppose the ACA.
The letter stated Republicans were mostly shut out of the planning and development of the ACA. However, for years, the Republicans were arguing for legislation exactly like the one that passed.
That’s a non sequitur argument. It’s possible for Republicans to be shut out of crafting the ACA after previously supporting similar legislation years earlier. During the 2012 campaign, all of the GOP presidential candidates made substantive arguments against Romneycare.
The biggest difference between Romneycare and the Affordable Care Act is that Romneycare’s rollout wasn’t the disaster that the ACA’s rollout is.
The letter also infers Democrats’ recent dominance of the U.S. House, Senate and presidency contributed to the polarization that now exists in Washington, DC.
This isn’t disputable. The Democrats’ arrogance for which they’re currently getting crucified contributed to DC’s polarization. It isn’t the sole cause of DC’s polarization but it certainly contributed to it.
At the end of the day, though, what’s important is that Democrats not named Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Wasserman-Schultz aren’t arguing that the ACA is great legislation that is helping families. It’s true that the ACA helped people who couldn’t get insurance because they had pre-existing conditions. It’s equally indisputable that the ACA caused millions of people to get cancellation notices of quality health insurance policies that paid for life-saving treatments at the world’s finest research hospitals.
There’s no doubt that some health insurance policies were junk. That’s proof that state health insurance commissioners didn’t do their jobs. They shouldn’t have approved those policies for sale in their states. Likewise, there’s no doubt that some policies that President Obama, Jay Carney and Frank Pallone say are substandard are actually pretty good policies.
Technorati: Obamacare, President Obama, Affordable Care Act, Romneycare, Nancy Pelosi, Frank Pallone, Harry Reid, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Straw-Man Arguments, Insurance Cancellations, Essential Health Benefits, Democrats
When Bill Hemmer interviewed Frank Luntz about the Affordable Care Act, he played this Americans for Prosperity, aka AFP, ad to lead into the discussion:
The ad features Nancy Pelosi spewing the usual Democratic Party chanting points:
PELOSI: Democrats stand tall in support of the Affordable Care Act.
Then, against a black backdrop, comes this simple, effective message from AFP:
Tell Congress Obamacare isn’t working. Stand tall for patients, not politics.
President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have been exceptionally stubborn in their support of the ACA. Eventually, the people will rebel against them when they see how the ACA is limiting their choices without lowering their costs.
Hemmer asked Mr. Luntz a question that led to this exchange:
BILL HEMMER: The issue is trust. How does that play out in the ad, do you believe?
LUNTZ: That’s exactly the point, Bill. You get it, that it isn’t about the health care act that’s important. It’s about politicians refusing to take accountability when they make mistakes. Clearly, the rollout wasn’t effective. Clearly, people were being thrown off their plans. And health care is just symbolic of a greater problem, that these Washington politicians like former Speaker Pelosi are making promises to the American people that they can’t keep.
It isn’t just that people think Democrats aren’t trustworthy. It’s that they’re mad politicians don’t even listen to them.
Lots of people appear on the Sunday talk shows or on FNC or CNN. They repeat their scripted message as often as it’s warranted. That’s a major mistake. Republicans, myself included, frequently disagreed with Bill Clinton. That said, they learned that listening is a virtue. Democrats seemed to have learned the opposite lesson. Michael Barone noticed that flaw in this column:
If Obamacare’s architects were keen on preventing exit, they blithely ignored voice. The legislation was unpopular when it was proposed, while it was passed and in the months and years afterwards. Barack Obama seldom mentioned it in the 2012 campaign except for the provision allowing “children” under 26 to stay on mommy and daddy’s policies.
That’s another way of saying that Democrats shoved unpopular legislation down the American people’s throats. Then they lied about what the bill wouldn’t do.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that that’s a recipe for disaster.
This CNN/ORC polling contains some disturbing news for the Obama administration, starting with this:
November 18-20, 2013 44% applies, 56% doesn’t apply
According to the report, that’s a huge drop. In 2010 and 2011, 57-58% of people said that President Obama inspired confidence. That’s a 25% drop. The bad news doesn’t stop there:
Thinking about the following characteristics and qualities, please say whether you think it applies or doesn’t apply to Barack Obama.
Is honest and trustworthy
November 18-20, 2013 46% applies, 53% doesn’t apply
As recently as May, 2013, 58% said that President Obama was honest and trustworthy. That’s a 20% drop in 6 months. As a result, people aren’t giving President Obama the benefit of the doubt anymore. That’s why President Obama’s worst days still haven’t arrived. Another ‘casualty’ of President Obama’s drop on the trust issue is that it’ll hurt Democrats in the generic ballot polling.
Michael Barone notes that President Obama defeated Mitt Romney in 209 districts across America. There’s no way of knowing how many of those districts would still vote for President Obama if they got a do-over. In a recent poll, Mitt Romney would defeat President Obama by a 49-45% margin. It’s reasonable to think that some of those 209 congressional districts would flip in a do-over race.
The effects of this polling is spilling over into other things:
Democratic leaders claim the bungled launch of Obamacare is just the latest news sensation, a media-stirred tempest that looks in the heat of the moment like it could upend the midterm election, but ends up fizzling well before voters head to the polls.
Some party strategists say they’re in denial.
And that perceived gap between party spin and facts on the ground is fueling worries that the White House and Democratic higher-ups aren’t taking the possible electoral blowback seriously enough or doing enough to shield their candidates. Democratic contenders in the toughest races are distinctly less convinced that Obamacare will fade as an election-year issue and they can’t afford to just cross their fingers that things get ironed out or that Republicans revert to political hara-kiri.
Democratic strategists don’t need to worry about the party doing more to help Democrats. They’re inextricably tied to the Affordable Care Act. The American people won’t distinguish between Democrats who didn’t defend the Affordable Care Act and Democrats who stuck to the party line. They won’t make that fine of a distinction.
It’s too early to predict a wave election. It isn’t too early to notice that the electorate is mad as hell. That isn’t good news for President Obama.