OBAMACARE DEEMED PASSED BY PELOSI'S "SLAUGHTER SOLUTION" CRAMDOWN TRICKERY

Actually my congressmen voted AGAINST THE BILL!!!!

Last Edited by Elias on 03/18/2010 05:28 PM

I am from ohio ...john boner needs to go away.....
he looks like a homo pedophile

It still has to go back to the senate now....

When Did People's House Become "Self-Executing Slaughter House"?
By John Lillpop


There was a time in American history when the U.S. House of Representatives was fondly known as "The People's House" in recognition of the fact that House members were closest to the needs and interests of their local constituents.

It was a term of endearment, one that seems especially out-of-place these days given the bizarre behavior of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and most Democrats.

Indeed, under the irresponsible and reckless leadership of Speaker Pelosi, terms such as "self-executing" and "slaughter house" are being used to describe the procedural maneuvering and sleight-of-hand pranks that Democrats are resorting to.


The issue is said to be about health care reform, but, in fact, the machinations and unseemly legislative contortions are all about saving face for the most arrogant and out-of-touch president in the nation's history.

As disgraced former CBS news anchor Dan Rather recently commented, the Obama mystique from a year ago has completely dissipated, and now the man is not capable of selling watermelons, much less a trillion dollar, deficit-busting attack on the best health care system in the world.

ObamaCare is so distasteful to so many people for so many reasons that Democrats have decided to ignore the U.S. Constitution, most American citizens, all Republicans, and established rules in order to pass the most onerous bill ever conceived.

Even then, there is no certainty that the House will pass--whatever that term is deemed to mean-any health care reform legislation any time soon.

Once again, Democrats have over reached and willfully destroyed any opportunity they might have had for moderate change.

In that sense, "self-executing slaughter house" is a most apt label for Nancy Pelosi's battered House of Representatives!

Projections from the House's "deem to pass" roll call
By: Michael Barone
Senior Political Analyst
03/18/10 5:21 PM EDT
The House voted this afternoon by a 222-203 margin to pass the “Slaughter solution” rule authorizing a single vote on the Senate health care bill which the House leadership wants to send to the president for signature plus the reconciliation health measure the House leadership wants to send to the Senate. This victory for the Democratic leadership makes it appear that they are on the verge of rounding up the required 216 vote-majority (of the current 431 House members, 253 Democrats and 178 Republicans). But the House leadership, of either party, almost always wins rule votes. An analysis of the votes cast for and against the rule, together with an examination of members’ public statements and political situations, suggests that the House leadership is still significantly short of 216 votes on final passage, and that opponents of the view have a reservoir of potential noes from more than the 38 Democrats needed to defeat the measure. Here’s my analysis:

Democrats voted for the rule by a 222-28 margin; all 175 Republicans were opposed. Six members, three Democrats and three Republicans, did not vote; each can be counted on to support his or her party on a final vote.

Of the 28 Democrats voting no, 16 voted against the House health care bill last November: Bright (AL 2), Davis (AL 7), Kosmas (FL 24), Minnick (ID 1), Melancon (LA 3), Kratovil (MD 1), Childers (MS 1), Taylor (MS 4), Adler (NJ 3), Teague (NM 2), McIntyre (NC 7), Shuler (NC 11), Boren (OK 2), Holden (PA 17), Herseth Sandlin (SD 1), Nye (VA 2). To judge from The Hill’s whip count, almost all of these 16 look like solid noes on the bill, with only Kosmas in doubt. Defying the leadership on a vote on a rule is a pretty clear indication of opposition on the merits. And it’s going to take a lot of persuading to get a member who has cast two safe-harbor no votes to switch, under the glare of publicity, to yes.

Of the 28 Democrats voting no on the rule, 12 voted for the House bill in November, when it passed 220-215. Of these, 5 have made public statements (or have staffers who have made public statements) saying they’ll switch from yes to no: Lipinski (IL 3), Costello (IL 12), Stupak (MI 1), Arcuri (NY 24), Carney (PA 10). In addition, Dahlkemper (PA 3) has made statements suggesting that she will oppose the Senate bill because of its abortion language. The other 6 who voted yes in November and no on the rule surprised me: Mitchell (AZ 5), Giffords (AZ 8), McNerney (CA 11), Michaud (ME 2), Cooper (TN 5), Perriello (VA 5). All but Cooper and Michaud face serious election challenges; their no votes may have been cast to give them political cover against yes votes on the final vote, or they may be a sign that they’re ready to switch. Michaud tends to be liberal on economic issues and moderate on cultural issues; perhaps he is troubled by the abortion issue. Cooper has been a critic of the Democratic leadership, and his willingness to vote against the leadership on the rule does not come as a complete surprise, and he has some expertise in health care policy. He has a safe Democratic (56% Obama 2008) district, but might be vulnerable to a primary challenge; I note that the filing deadline for federal candidates in Tennessee is April 1.

Of the 222 Democrats who voted for the rule, 18 appear on The Hill’s whip count as firm, likely, or leaning no on the Senate health care bill. Of those 18, 13 voted no on the House bill in November: Ross (AR 4), Boyd (FL 2), Marshall (GA 8), Barrow (GA 12), Chandler (KY 6), Peterson (MN 7), Skelton (MO 4), McMahon (NY 13), Kissell (NC 8), Davis (TN 4), Edwards (TX 17), Matheson (UT 2), Boucher (VA 9). Two are committee chairmen (Peterson, Skelton) and two are important subcommittee chairmen (Edwards, Boucher) who are presumably unwilling to buck the leadership on a rule vote. All but 3 are from southern-accented districts; every one is from a district that voted for John McCain. Most are listed as no votes on The Hill’s whip count.

In addition, 5 Democrats who voted yes in November and yes on the rule still show up as at least leaning no on final passage in The Hill’s whip count: Berry (AR 1), Donnelly (IN 2), Driehaus (OH 1), Gutierrez (IL 4), Lynch (MA 9). Gutierrez has said he’ll vote no because of immigration issues; I don’t believe that for a minute. Donnelly and Driehaus are said to be leaning no because of the abortion issue. Berry since he announced his decision to retire has been grumbling about the unpopularity of the president’s program; perhaps he feels he is a victim of Obamacare. Lynch’s announcement that he would vote no on the Senate bill was a surprise; he’s from a district that is a lineal descendant of the districts represented by Rules Committee Chairman Joe Moakley and Speaker John McCormack. But it now stretches far from his base in South Boston to the suburbs, and it voted about 55% for Scott Brown in January. Still, Lynch’s pronouncement that the “deem to pass” procedure was “disingenuous did not prevent him from voting for it, and perhaps his statement that he’d vote against the final bill should be taken with skepticism.

Other possible no votes can be culled from those listed in The Hill’s whip count as undecided include: Altmire (PA 4), who voted no in November and has been denouncing both “deem and pass” and the bill on every cable outlet, but voted for “deem and pass” today. Baird (WA 3), who voted no in November and later announced he was retiring from Congress. Boccieri (OH 16), who voted no in November and declined to appear with Barack Obama on Monday in northern Ohio near his district. Ellsworth (IN 8), who voted yes in November and is running for the Senate. Markey (CO 4), whose late-in-the-roll-call no vote in November suggests she knows voting yes could defeat her but who is responsive to the Democratic leadership. Tanner (TN 8), who voted no in November and late announced he was retiring from Congress.

I will leave it to readers to add up their own totals and to make any additions to the list they want. They should understand that I’m approaching this from the outside. The Democratic leadership has lots more information than I do, and perhaps more commitments, solid or hedged, than appear in the public record. But we’re still seeing only one November no vote switched publicly to yes—that of Dennis Kucinich, one of two Democrats who opposed the House bill from the left (with the other, Eric Massa, no longer in the House). We’ve seen more November yes votes switching publicly to no. Lynch is one I wouldn’t have predicted. This looks like the toughest challenge the House leadership has faced since Nancy Pelosi was elected Speaker in January 2007.



Read more at the Washington Examiner: [link to www.washingtonexaminer.com]

Here is the link to the actual house and how each voted:

[link to clerk.house.gov]

What I have learned about this bill, if it passes, and won't be effective until 2014, the Republicans have a plan to repeal it then.

The benefits start in 2014. The taxes start right away.

so they really are going to do this without a vote?

Gingrich used it 30 times. Learn your history, and don't embarrass yourself. Oh I forgot, it's hard to embarrass a moron.

Under Speaker Gingrich there were 38 self-executing [link to en.wikipedia.org]

you AC 839359 are a fucktard!

Last Edited by Elias on 03/18/2010 06:00 PM

Lambs to the Slaughter rule
By Cheri Jacobus - 03/18/10 05:33 PM ET
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) may employ a measure so unusual and controversial to pass a healthcare bill for President Barack Obama’s signature, it challenges the imagination and boggles the minds of rational thinkers.

A tactic known as the “self-executing rule” or “deem and pass” is in Pelosi’s sights and has never been used for anything as huge, complicated and impactful as a trillion-dollar healthcare bill. The Speaker and her cohorts are considering a parliamentary trick that would pass the bill without any member of the House of Representatives actually having to vote on it.

No one actually has to touch it. No one actually has to claim responsibility. Plausible deniability is built right in — courtesy of Speaker Pelosi.

ObamaCare would emerge from the House by way of a virgin birth.

However, it is politically naïve to operate under the assumption that people will refrain from holding Democrats accountable.

The slimy package of reconciliation and “deem and pass,” along with those much-maligned (and rightly so) closed-door backroom maneuverings by Democrats shutting out Republicans will prove to be a toxic cocktail for Democrats come November. Senate Democrats’ insistence that Pelosi’s parliamentary sleaze had nothing to do with them will, and should, fall on deaf ears with the electorate.


The only explanation for the lunacy of the Democrats’ strategy that they have lost Republicans, independents and many, many moderate, centrist Democrats all across the country. At this point, they needed to scramble to preserve the only viable group of supporters available — their far-left base. That’s why liberal Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) finally coughing up his support for a bill he considers not liberal enough is so important to President Barack Obama, and why he took time out of his presidential schedule to travel to Ohio to show Kucinich some presidential love. It worked. Kucinich swooned and flipped.


If Obama loses healthcare, he loses on all fronts in 2012. But if he wins healthcare, he still loses everywhere — except the Kucinich/MoveOn.org wing of the Democratic Party. By ramming ObamaCare through Congress come hell or high water, Obama has at least preserved his farm-team activist support on the far left. He probably will even prevent a primary challenge from the left, as well, which is no accidental, insignificant part of his strategy.


Obama is sending many of his Democratic lambs to slaughter by twisting their arms on healthcare. Senate Democrats, too, will pay a price for Pelosi’s smarmy “deem and pass” scheme in the House, as voters are highly unlikely to distinguish between the two chambers and let senators off the hook. But the President is quite comfortable and willing to force congressional Democrats to make that sacrifice on his behalf, boosting his own dwindling political fortunes. (The new Gallup poll shows his disapprovals higher than his approval numbers, similar to recent Rasmussen polls.)


Democrats may lose, but the left will be happy with ObamaCare and therefore with Obama. If the left were unhappy, there would be a serious primary challenge, possibly by a defeated House or Senate Democrat. It would not be surprising, nor unexpected, if many of those possible soon-to-be losers are being told quietly — so very, very quietly — that should they lose their bid for reelection due to their support for ObamaCare or, more devastating, for the skeevy parliamentary maneuverings to pass ObamaCare, there is a nice Cabinet position that will be made available just for them, or maybe a cushy ambassadorship to somewhere sunny and exotic. Perhaps even a vice presidency will be offered in the event Vice President Joe Biden decides (or is told) to exit the scene to “spend more time with his family.”


Obama may be buoyed by the notion that while his former colleagues in Congress will suffer at the ballot box this November, he has plenty of time to turn the public’s unhappiness with him and ObamaCare around by the time he is up for reelection in 2012. But if ObamaCare is signed into law, a court battle may ensue with the constitutionality of the methods of passage coming under fire. ObamaCare and the tactics used to make it law will be in the spotlight and on voters’ minds as they cast their vote for president — not exactly welcome news for Obama.

Jacobus, president of Capitol Strategies PR, has managed congressional campaigns, worked on Capitol Hill and is an adjunct professor at George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management. She appears on CNN, MSNBC and FOX News as a GOP s


[link to thehill.com]

What seems unconstitutional is that one part of Congress, in this instance, the House, passes a bill and then the Senate has no power and the slaughter rule reigns supreme? HuH? That only says one half of the Congress votes and its okay? Sounds like a covert game plan to me.

DEEM AND PASS.