
by: Bill Dupray posted: 2009-11-01 15:18:00
Viewed 277 times. 0 Comments.
We had this in the Newsstand earlier, but I wanted to put a little meat on the bones. Remember when the press got all lathered over Olympia Snow (RINO-Maine) voting for the Baucus bill in the Finance Committee? Well, earlier that same day Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said he would not support the public option. But you likely did not read about Lieberman's statement at the time, because that didn't fit the MSM's template to trumpet Snowe's defection and create a sense of momentum for the Democrats.
As a test, I suggested that we would see all kinds of press the next day about Snowe and none for Lieberman, even though Lieberman's position was a whole lot more significant than Snowe's. After all the Dems didn't need Snowe's vote (especially in the Committee, as they outnumbered the Republicans 13-10), but they sure as hell needed Lieberman to stop a filibuster.
As I suspected, the New York Times the next day had 3 articles and two pics of Snowe and nothing about Lieberman on the front page of the politics section. You had to dig to find a mention of Lieberman on one of their blogs.
Howard Kurtz noted that Snowe got the full treatement, but nobody noticed Lieberman.
So today, with Snowe's insignificant vote looking even moreso, we finally get some real, substantive news, and lo and behold, it is Joe Lieberman reminding us (and informing many Liberals for the first time) that the public option will pass . . . over his dead body.
Everybody is listening now, aren't they?
With the non-existent tolerance of Liberals for opposing points of view, this will probably generate some hate mail (or worse) for Lieberman that would make a Marine blush.
Tags: filibuster,
Trackback url: http://patriotroom.com/article/lieberman-i-am-gonna-filibuster-the-public-option/trackback
Views: 80 Comments: 0
Views: 270 Comments: 0
Views: 77 Comments: 1
Views: 183 Comments: 0
Views: 156 Comments: 0
Views: 89 Comments: 1
Views: 114 Comments: 8
According to these rulings, such health legislation creates a statutory requirement for abortion funding, unless Congress clearly forbids such funding. That is why the Hyde amendment was needed in 1976, to stop Medicaid from funding 300,000 abortions a year. The statutory mandate construed by the courts would override any executive order or regulation. This is the unanimous view of our legal advisors and of the experts we have consulted on abortion jurisprudence. Only a change in the law enacted by Congress, not an executive order, can begin to address this very serious problem in the legislation."
Views: 83 Comments: 0
Views: 97 Comments: 0
[Democrats] have inserted . . . a provision that it would take a supermajority of 67 votes in the Senate for future legislative bodies to even consider amendments to its provisions for "death panels." . . . The bill states, "It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection." That subsection addresses rules and regulations that doctors would be ordered to follow by the "Independent Medicare Advisory Boards a/k/a the Death Panels," RedState reported.
Views: 89 Comments: 1
Comments 0
Have an opinion?