Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Carney in the crosshairs

Last week Sarah Palin put up this graphic on her Facebook page sayin'

We’re paying particular attention to those House members who voted in favor of Obamacare and represent districts that Senator John McCain and I carried during the 2008 election... and we’re going to hold them accountable for this disastrous Obamacare vote. They are... Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-3), Christopher Carney (PA-10)..
We’ll aim for these races and many others. This is just the first salvo in a fight to elect people across the nation who will bring common sense to Washington.

Carney responded when he visited the Prompton Fire Department to deliver a piece of pork for new equipment.

WNEP: "If this is what Ms. Palin is about, if she is saying we have to reload and put crosshairs on people that's beyond the pale," said Carney. "I'm happy she's doing that, actually. It helps us. "

Carney believes the health care bill will become more popular once people understand it. He said he isn't worried about Palin's plan. "If she wants to take us on based on a popular bill, please, please let her do it," the congressman said..."You can't vote worried about your career, you have to vote the right way," said Carney. "You have to vote your conscience and for me this was a vote of conscience."

I always like to nickname politicians and since Palin is gunning for him maybe we should start calling him Moose.
Dave Madeira just about fainted over his remarks and wants to "tone down the rhetoric" because it gives "aid and comfort to anti-gunners ."
On the health care vote Madeira pointed to a poll released by The Tarrance Group (Republican outfit) in early March that found 58 percent of likely voters in Pennsylvania's 10th Congressional District oppose the Obama-Pelosi health care plan that Carney voted for in November. The poll found only 28 percent of likely voters in the district support the current plan. http://www.naw.org/files/MultiDistrictHealthCareSurveyResults.pdf I'd like to see another after people find out what is actually what is in the bill.
Is my friend David really saying that he would conduct a poll before he voted on a controversial issue before casting his vote then be guided by the result if he makes it to Congress? Government by plebliscite sounds good but is unworkable and the Constitution gave us a republic not a democracy.
Since my friends on the right like to quote people that have been long dead I will offer this although he is not a founding father.

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.


zfiz imawlil said...

good Burke quot,

And he is a kindred spirit to the founding fathers,

Unfortunately many so called conservatives dont know enough about Burke and look to d bag Rousseauian Radicals like Jefferson(slave raper) or Payne for inspiration.

I bet they know the one quote

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

However they read it as a reason to spread democracy world wide. Which is not Burke's style

McGruff said...

The Government of the absolute majority instead of the Government of the people is but the Government of the strongest interests; and when not efficiently checked, it is the most tyrannical and oppressive that can be devised.

The interval between the decay of the old and the formation and establishment of the new constitutes a period of transition which must always necessarily be one of uncertainty, confusion, error, and wild and fierce fanaticism.

John C Calhoun

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

Thomas Jefferson

The government owns the banks, the auto industries, determines pay with czars, took over the student loan program, and mandated how states will provide the means for healthcare insurance( insurance exchanges, more on Medicaid), all the while the masses being told it is our best interests to triple the debt that they used to whip George Bush with.

The Democrats were thrown out of power in 1994 and the Republicans were removed in 2008. It will cycle and cycle and cycle because it is not about the citizenry. The "guns" taken up are about power and control in Washington. History only informs us of what bad government is. Time and time again the minority convinces us about what is needed for the future in the hopes one day of becoming the majority. What is lost is once they become the majority the masses become the minority, not the minority party. They haven't learned that the less they use their power the better off we all will be.

Herself said...

I've gotten robocalls from these Republican leaning and right wing pollsters and think tanks before. They are usually conciously worded to provoke a negative response and repeat the rhetoric of those in opposition to whatever they are polling on--for example, labeling healthcare legislation as "Obama-Pelosi" plan (usually sneeringly said), and asking if you approve of a "government-run healthcare program".

Austin said...

McGruff, It would appear that the greatest beneficiaries of the banks are the same as those of the Federal Gov't. That is the gov't owns the banks as much as the banks own the gov't. Which is too much, but this has been getting worse 1913.

That take over of the student loans consisted of the gov't ending its practice of loaning Sallie Mae our money 1% so they could loan it back to our students at 5% and payout six or seven figures worth of campaign contributions to legislators.

Their take over of the car industry was one very few things they did that actually produced significant results.

If we had a government that responded to the needs and values of the majority we would have single payer care, popular election of Presidents and people making the Federal Minimum wouldn't be paying higher percentages into SS, Medicare or anything when compared with the rich and/or very rich.

The problem with our two political machines is that they are both owned and operated by the very rich, like all of the other institutions in our society.

Some talking head pointed out that if we hadn't done the Bush tax cuts we wouldn't be in any debt right now. Is that true?

Big Dan said...

Many progressives are angry at President Barack Obama’s concessions to corporate interests -- and even to Republicans -- on healthcare reform, essentially embracing Mitt Romney’s industry-friendly plan for Massachusetts and throwing away the sliver of a public option that the House had approved.

But, as Jeff Cohen notes in this guest essay, progressives won an important consolation prize when Congress tacked on to the healthcare "reconciliation" bill a direct student loan program, which cut bank subsidies out of the process:

Soon, private profiteers (and subsidies to them) will be sidelined, and the government will save taxpayers billions by providing service directly to Americans in need.

Big Dan said...

McGruff: you mean the Thomas Jefferson the Republicans in Texas just striked out of all their school textbooks???

Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term “separation between church and state.”)

Maybe you ought to go down to Texas and straighten out those Republicans!!!

James said...

Big Dan - I found your last post to be quite curious (actually, I found it extremely difficult to believe) so I did a little research. I don't know if you were speaking out of ignorance, or simply a desire to deceive, but here are the facts in what you say. I will assume you were speaking out of ignorance and simply assuming that whatever the NY Times prints MUST be true. But anyway, for future use, here you go:
Thomas Jefferson was NOT "just striked out of all their textbooks" in Texas as you claim. The #1 mentioned person in the new textbook is George Washington. The #2 most mentioned person in the new textbook is...(drumroll please)...Thomas Jefferson. So he was NOT "striked out". His name was removed from the following paragraph -

"Government. The student understands how contemporary political systems have developed from earlier systems of government. The student is expected to ... explain the impact of Enlightenment ideas from John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Thomas Jefferson on political revolutions from 1750 to the present."

The reason his name was removed was, in part, because the purpose of this section of the curriculum was to show how the thinking of the Founding Fathers (i.e. Jefferson and others) was impacted by the ideas that came out of the enlightenment - the rest of the men listed. The woman you cite said the following about her push to have it removed:

"It does take out (the) reference to Thomas Jefferson. But the reason is not that I don't think his ideas were important. It's just that this is a list of political philosophers from which the Founding Fathers based their ideologies and their principles."

So you are obviously spreading a lie.

To all who read this: this is a great example of how the liberals on the left simply accept what they read in places like the New York Times and then pass it on as fact. However, remember - the FACTS are on our side, but not that the FACTS matter much to liberals.

Austin said...

James you should check out the clips of those board meetings in Texas before you defend them. They order information about important political dissidents removed on the grounds that people do not already know who they are. As the president of that board put "someone has to stand up to experts."

Also according to this report:


TJ and/or his philosophies of the separation of church and state were stricken from much more than one paragraph.

So, Big D isn't lying.

Big Dan said...

Lady and the Gramps

James said...

Austin - was Thomas Jefferson "just striked out of all their textbooks?". No. TJ is the second most mentioned person. Big Dan was wrong. Second, I am very good friends with someone who is extremely influential with this board. As I have already illustrated, you are simply drinking the coolaid. Finally, I would venture to go out on a limb and say that you probably have no clue as to what is meant (and more importantly, what is NOT meant) by the separation of church and state. Remember - the Sunday AFTER TJ wrote the letter to the Danbury Baptists in which he identified this wall of separation between church and state (so the state would not infringe on the the rights of the church and not the other way around) what did he do? He went to church. Where did he go? The same place he always went...in the rotunda of the US Capitol. Liberals are so utterly clueless as to what is meant and not meant by this phrase (that is not even in the Constitution by the way). The proof is overwhelming: it does not mean what you think it means.

Austin said...

Again, Dan didn't claim his name was no longer mentioned. TJ was removed because they wanted to down play his desire to keep his politics and faith separate. Dan didn't lie.

What is in the Constitution is that "[c]ongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;."

I have read, watched and listen to discussions on the subject from hundreds of historians, lawyers, policy wonks, judges, politicians and political dissidents. One doesn't need much of a clue to determine that the board intended to push their view of history, since they have flat out stated their intentions.

Also I don't drink Kool Aid much any more cuz I don't do well with sugar.